Questions Arise as to the Relationship between MIG and Ultra Clean

By David GreenwaldOctober 16, 2007300 comments
Last week the Vanguard questioned a survey that the city was conducting through a consulting group, Moore Iacofano Goltsman, Inc. Specifically the question arose as to the necessity of conducting a variety of surveys in the update of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The city has approved expenditures of up to $75,000 for such updates.

This expenditure was opposed by Mayor Sue Greenwald and Councilmember Lamar Heystek.

After running the article last week, we began to get feedback from members of the community who participated in the poll. Most of these individuals felt the questions were superficial and constructed in such a way as to arrive at some sort of preconceived answer.

In the course of these conversations, the questions arose however as to why the caller ID from these calls identified, Ultra Clean Pools, as the source of the call. Ultra Clean Pools is the pool company owned by Davis City Councilmember Stephen Souza.

After a long period of pondering, the decision was made to inquire as to how this came to be and whether there is a legitimate reason why the company owned and run by a sitting Davis City Councilmember would be involved with a vendor that has a city contract to conduct surveys and create a parks master plan.

As part of the my inquiry into this relationship, I have drafted a letter that will be sent out this morning to City Attorney Harriet Steiner and copied to the entire city council, City Manager Bill Emlen, and City Clerk Margaret Roberts.

I have attached a copy of the letter here for all to read.

It inquires into the “reason that the calls from MIG have Mr. Souza’s company noted as the caller ID and the nature of the relationship between Mr. Souza, Mr. Souza’s company Ultra Clean Pools and MIG.”

I further make a public records act request to see the exact survey that is being used in contacts with the community.

Everyone who has spoken to me about this has been puzzled as to why Ultra Clean Pools would show up on their caller ID and therefore it makes sense to ask questions. If there is a legitimate explanation that is fine, but this is city money, taxpayer money, and a city contract and the public deserves answers to these questions.

Update: Stephen Souza has posted on the Vanguard this morning, he suggests that there was some confusion and that these calls were a survey for Measure Q and school board candidates rather than the Parks survey. The Vanguard will be checking into this and update the situation as new information becomes available.

—Doug Paul Davis reporting

Author

  • David Greenwald

    Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

    View all posts

Categories:

Land Use/Open Space

300 comments

  1. Mr. David Greenwald, there is no relationship. You are confusing a poll on school board candidates and Measure Q with a survey being conduted by Godbe Research. Stephen Souza

  2. Mr. David Greenwald, there is no relationship. You are confusing a poll on school board candidates and Measure Q with a survey being conduted by Godbe Research. Stephen Souza

  3. Mr. David Greenwald, there is no relationship. You are confusing a poll on school board candidates and Measure Q with a survey being conduted by Godbe Research. Stephen Souza

  4. Mr. David Greenwald, there is no relationship. You are confusing a poll on school board candidates and Measure Q with a survey being conduted by Godbe Research. Stephen Souza

  13. I was told it was a parks survey, they even commented on the questions. I was told this by at least three different individuals. Perhaps there was some confusion, that is why I asked the question.

  14. I was told it was a parks survey, they even commented on the questions. I was told this by at least three different individuals. Perhaps there was some confusion, that is why I asked the question.

  15. I was told it was a parks survey, they even commented on the questions. I was told this by at least three different individuals. Perhaps there was some confusion, that is why I asked the question.

  16. I was told it was a parks survey, they even commented on the questions. I was told this by at least three different individuals. Perhaps there was some confusion, that is why I asked the question.

  17. “Most of these individuals felt the questions were superficial and constructed in such a way as to arrive at some sort of preconceived answer.”

    Polling is always suspect in this regard and the actual wording of the questions tells the story. The polling questions concerning support for Valley Oak were clearly selected to arrive at a preconceived answer. The School Board majority never asked voters the question whether their support for Measure Q would change if the nine-school option(not closing Valley Oak Elementary)was a part of the Measure Q “package”.

    DPD: Thanks for the investigative reporting. More clarification on Councilman Souza’s role here or the School Board Measure Q polling(if it turns out that this is his connection)is always helpful to Davis voters. The actual polling questions will be very interesting to see verbatim.

  18. “Most of these individuals felt the questions were superficial and constructed in such a way as to arrive at some sort of preconceived answer.”

    Polling is always suspect in this regard and the actual wording of the questions tells the story. The polling questions concerning support for Valley Oak were clearly selected to arrive at a preconceived answer. The School Board majority never asked voters the question whether their support for Measure Q would change if the nine-school option(not closing Valley Oak Elementary)was a part of the Measure Q “package”.

    DPD: Thanks for the investigative reporting. More clarification on Councilman Souza’s role here or the School Board Measure Q polling(if it turns out that this is his connection)is always helpful to Davis voters. The actual polling questions will be very interesting to see verbatim.

  19. “Most of these individuals felt the questions were superficial and constructed in such a way as to arrive at some sort of preconceived answer.”

    Polling is always suspect in this regard and the actual wording of the questions tells the story. The polling questions concerning support for Valley Oak were clearly selected to arrive at a preconceived answer. The School Board majority never asked voters the question whether their support for Measure Q would change if the nine-school option(not closing Valley Oak Elementary)was a part of the Measure Q “package”.

    DPD: Thanks for the investigative reporting. More clarification on Councilman Souza’s role here or the School Board Measure Q polling(if it turns out that this is his connection)is always helpful to Davis voters. The actual polling questions will be very interesting to see verbatim.

  20. “Most of these individuals felt the questions were superficial and constructed in such a way as to arrive at some sort of preconceived answer.”

    Polling is always suspect in this regard and the actual wording of the questions tells the story. The polling questions concerning support for Valley Oak were clearly selected to arrive at a preconceived answer. The School Board majority never asked voters the question whether their support for Measure Q would change if the nine-school option(not closing Valley Oak Elementary)was a part of the Measure Q “package”.

    DPD: Thanks for the investigative reporting. More clarification on Councilman Souza’s role here or the School Board Measure Q polling(if it turns out that this is his connection)is always helpful to Davis voters. The actual polling questions will be very interesting to see verbatim.

  21. Keep digging DPD, there are answers somewhere, but you are going to have to search deep for them. These people do not like to let their guard down and they hate to be called on stuff.

  22. Keep digging DPD, there are answers somewhere, but you are going to have to search deep for them. These people do not like to let their guard down and they hate to be called on stuff.

  23. Keep digging DPD, there are answers somewhere, but you are going to have to search deep for them. These people do not like to let their guard down and they hate to be called on stuff.

  24. Keep digging DPD, there are answers somewhere, but you are going to have to search deep for them. These people do not like to let their guard down and they hate to be called on stuff.

  29. Anonymous at 8:30 AM asked a good question: Why is a sitting council member conducting a poll of any kind other than for his own issue(s)?

    I would like to know what favors or kickbacks, if any, are being given? We the taxpayers and voters have a right to know.

    The city should conduct their own surveys using independent resources and so too should the school district. They should not be doing favors for each other.

    This does give the appearance of too many hands in too many pots as a previous poster stated.

  30. Anonymous at 8:30 AM asked a good question: Why is a sitting council member conducting a poll of any kind other than for his own issue(s)?

    I would like to know what favors or kickbacks, if any, are being given? We the taxpayers and voters have a right to know.

    The city should conduct their own surveys using independent resources and so too should the school district. They should not be doing favors for each other.

    This does give the appearance of too many hands in too many pots as a previous poster stated.

  31. Anonymous at 8:30 AM asked a good question: Why is a sitting council member conducting a poll of any kind other than for his own issue(s)?

    I would like to know what favors or kickbacks, if any, are being given? We the taxpayers and voters have a right to know.

    The city should conduct their own surveys using independent resources and so too should the school district. They should not be doing favors for each other.

    This does give the appearance of too many hands in too many pots as a previous poster stated.

  32. Anonymous at 8:30 AM asked a good question: Why is a sitting council member conducting a poll of any kind other than for his own issue(s)?

    I would like to know what favors or kickbacks, if any, are being given? We the taxpayers and voters have a right to know.

    The city should conduct their own surveys using independent resources and so too should the school district. They should not be doing favors for each other.

    This does give the appearance of too many hands in too many pots as a previous poster stated.

  33. I received the survey call with Ultra Clean ID asking my opinion on Measure Q and School Board preferences. I wondered why Stephen Souza wanted that information. Is Ultra Clean in the polling and pooling business?

  34. I received the survey call with Ultra Clean ID asking my opinion on Measure Q and School Board preferences. I wondered why Stephen Souza wanted that information. Is Ultra Clean in the polling and pooling business?

  35. I received the survey call with Ultra Clean ID asking my opinion on Measure Q and School Board preferences. I wondered why Stephen Souza wanted that information. Is Ultra Clean in the polling and pooling business?

  36. I received the survey call with Ultra Clean ID asking my opinion on Measure Q and School Board preferences. I wondered why Stephen Souza wanted that information. Is Ultra Clean in the polling and pooling business?

  37. I do not have Caller ID, but did get 2 calls on different phones computer generated that asked for my vote on Q and candidates. I questioned why at the end there was NO mention of who was doing or paying for the polling. I think that should be a requirement of these. When they are computer generated, we may have answered before realizing we won’t know the source. Keep digging!

  38. I do not have Caller ID, but did get 2 calls on different phones computer generated that asked for my vote on Q and candidates. I questioned why at the end there was NO mention of who was doing or paying for the polling. I think that should be a requirement of these. When they are computer generated, we may have answered before realizing we won’t know the source. Keep digging!

  39. I do not have Caller ID, but did get 2 calls on different phones computer generated that asked for my vote on Q and candidates. I questioned why at the end there was NO mention of who was doing or paying for the polling. I think that should be a requirement of these. When they are computer generated, we may have answered before realizing we won’t know the source. Keep digging!

  40. I do not have Caller ID, but did get 2 calls on different phones computer generated that asked for my vote on Q and candidates. I questioned why at the end there was NO mention of who was doing or paying for the polling. I think that should be a requirement of these. When they are computer generated, we may have answered before realizing we won’t know the source. Keep digging!

  41. Doug – You may have stumped upon the idea for some new city of Davis law, or some new legislation.

    Just as candidates have to disclose at the end of a TV or radio ad, “my name is ___ and I approve this ad.”

    Perhaps there should be a city law or legislation that says that polls have to begin by saying that a particular poll is paid and sponsored by _______.

    Good work.

  42. Doug – You may have stumped upon the idea for some new city of Davis law, or some new legislation.

    Just as candidates have to disclose at the end of a TV or radio ad, “my name is ___ and I approve this ad.”

    Perhaps there should be a city law or legislation that says that polls have to begin by saying that a particular poll is paid and sponsored by _______.

    Good work.

  43. Doug – You may have stumped upon the idea for some new city of Davis law, or some new legislation.

    Just as candidates have to disclose at the end of a TV or radio ad, “my name is ___ and I approve this ad.”

    Perhaps there should be a city law or legislation that says that polls have to begin by saying that a particular poll is paid and sponsored by _______.

    Good work.

  44. Doug – You may have stumped upon the idea for some new city of Davis law, or some new legislation.

    Just as candidates have to disclose at the end of a TV or radio ad, “my name is ___ and I approve this ad.”

    Perhaps there should be a city law or legislation that says that polls have to begin by saying that a particular poll is paid and sponsored by _______.

    Good work.

  45. Okay I get that there is a Measure Q survey. Okay that one was sponsored by Souza.

    What I want to really hear is someone who received the park survey who either received or did not receive it from Ultra Clean. That will be the point of contention.

  46. Okay I get that there is a Measure Q survey. Okay that one was sponsored by Souza.

    What I want to really hear is someone who received the park survey who either received or did not receive it from Ultra Clean. That will be the point of contention.

  47. Okay I get that there is a Measure Q survey. Okay that one was sponsored by Souza.

    What I want to really hear is someone who received the park survey who either received or did not receive it from Ultra Clean. That will be the point of contention.

  48. Okay I get that there is a Measure Q survey. Okay that one was sponsored by Souza.

    What I want to really hear is someone who received the park survey who either received or did not receive it from Ultra Clean. That will be the point of contention.

  53. Godbe Research is doing the survey re: Measure Q and school board candidates. Godbe Research is also doing the survey for MIG, Inc. regarding the parks.

    Who is Godbe Research? And why don’t they have their own phones to use for their own business (surveys), instead of using Steve Souza’s business phone?

  54. Godbe Research is doing the survey re: Measure Q and school board candidates. Godbe Research is also doing the survey for MIG, Inc. regarding the parks.

    Who is Godbe Research? And why don’t they have their own phones to use for their own business (surveys), instead of using Steve Souza’s business phone?

  55. Godbe Research is doing the survey re: Measure Q and school board candidates. Godbe Research is also doing the survey for MIG, Inc. regarding the parks.

    Who is Godbe Research? And why don’t they have their own phones to use for their own business (surveys), instead of using Steve Souza’s business phone?

  56. Godbe Research is doing the survey re: Measure Q and school board candidates. Godbe Research is also doing the survey for MIG, Inc. regarding the parks.

    Who is Godbe Research? And why don’t they have their own phones to use for their own business (surveys), instead of using Steve Souza’s business phone?

  57. “After a long period of pondering, the decision was made to inquire as to how this came to be and whether there is a legitimate reason why the company owned and run by a sitting Davis City Councilmember would be involved with a vendor that has a city contract to conduct surveys and create a parks master plan.”

    David, the paragraph above is terribly damning. It strongly implies that you know that “there is a … company owned and run by a sitting Davis City Councilmember … involved with a vendor.”

    You really don’t know that. (Nor do I.) You apparently never called up the city councilman to ask him if his company is involved with that vendor. Your journalism here is unbelievably bad.

    I have a recommendation for you: rather than posting your story trashing an elected official, first speak with the person you are accusing of wrongdoing and get his side of the story. It’s terribly unethical to do what you have done.

    You may have found a real, substantial conflict of interest, here, and by doing so served the public interest. I have no idea. But it is just bad journalism to write this story without first calling up Stephen Souza. I cannot imagine why you didn’t call him first. You are under no deadline pressure. Just hold the story for a few hours until you can get ahold of him, and ask him why his company’s phone was used for a survey.

    You still could have ethically published your story, but only if you included his explanation (even if you doubted it).

    To say that he (or anyone else you attack) has the right to respond in the comments section of this blog is total b.s. He may have never seen your blog posting, and his explanation never would have been seen by your readers.

    I realize that most of the readers of this blog share your prejudices and hence will believe your attacks on individuals you enjoy attacking, regardless of their facts. But when you ceaselessly publish attacks on people in Davis and only later go back to ask them if they are true, even your toadies will have to doubt the fairness of what you publish.

  58. “After a long period of pondering, the decision was made to inquire as to how this came to be and whether there is a legitimate reason why the company owned and run by a sitting Davis City Councilmember would be involved with a vendor that has a city contract to conduct surveys and create a parks master plan.”

    David, the paragraph above is terribly damning. It strongly implies that you know that “there is a … company owned and run by a sitting Davis City Councilmember … involved with a vendor.”

    You really don’t know that. (Nor do I.) You apparently never called up the city councilman to ask him if his company is involved with that vendor. Your journalism here is unbelievably bad.

    I have a recommendation for you: rather than posting your story trashing an elected official, first speak with the person you are accusing of wrongdoing and get his side of the story. It’s terribly unethical to do what you have done.

    You may have found a real, substantial conflict of interest, here, and by doing so served the public interest. I have no idea. But it is just bad journalism to write this story without first calling up Stephen Souza. I cannot imagine why you didn’t call him first. You are under no deadline pressure. Just hold the story for a few hours until you can get ahold of him, and ask him why his company’s phone was used for a survey.

    You still could have ethically published your story, but only if you included his explanation (even if you doubted it).

    To say that he (or anyone else you attack) has the right to respond in the comments section of this blog is total b.s. He may have never seen your blog posting, and his explanation never would have been seen by your readers.

    I realize that most of the readers of this blog share your prejudices and hence will believe your attacks on individuals you enjoy attacking, regardless of their facts. But when you ceaselessly publish attacks on people in Davis and only later go back to ask them if they are true, even your toadies will have to doubt the fairness of what you publish.

  59. “After a long period of pondering, the decision was made to inquire as to how this came to be and whether there is a legitimate reason why the company owned and run by a sitting Davis City Councilmember would be involved with a vendor that has a city contract to conduct surveys and create a parks master plan.”

    David, the paragraph above is terribly damning. It strongly implies that you know that “there is a … company owned and run by a sitting Davis City Councilmember … involved with a vendor.”

    You really don’t know that. (Nor do I.) You apparently never called up the city councilman to ask him if his company is involved with that vendor. Your journalism here is unbelievably bad.

    I have a recommendation for you: rather than posting your story trashing an elected official, first speak with the person you are accusing of wrongdoing and get his side of the story. It’s terribly unethical to do what you have done.

    You may have found a real, substantial conflict of interest, here, and by doing so served the public interest. I have no idea. But it is just bad journalism to write this story without first calling up Stephen Souza. I cannot imagine why you didn’t call him first. You are under no deadline pressure. Just hold the story for a few hours until you can get ahold of him, and ask him why his company’s phone was used for a survey.

    You still could have ethically published your story, but only if you included his explanation (even if you doubted it).

    To say that he (or anyone else you attack) has the right to respond in the comments section of this blog is total b.s. He may have never seen your blog posting, and his explanation never would have been seen by your readers.

    I realize that most of the readers of this blog share your prejudices and hence will believe your attacks on individuals you enjoy attacking, regardless of their facts. But when you ceaselessly publish attacks on people in Davis and only later go back to ask them if they are true, even your toadies will have to doubt the fairness of what you publish.

  60. “After a long period of pondering, the decision was made to inquire as to how this came to be and whether there is a legitimate reason why the company owned and run by a sitting Davis City Councilmember would be involved with a vendor that has a city contract to conduct surveys and create a parks master plan.”

    David, the paragraph above is terribly damning. It strongly implies that you know that “there is a … company owned and run by a sitting Davis City Councilmember … involved with a vendor.”

    You really don’t know that. (Nor do I.) You apparently never called up the city councilman to ask him if his company is involved with that vendor. Your journalism here is unbelievably bad.

    I have a recommendation for you: rather than posting your story trashing an elected official, first speak with the person you are accusing of wrongdoing and get his side of the story. It’s terribly unethical to do what you have done.

    You may have found a real, substantial conflict of interest, here, and by doing so served the public interest. I have no idea. But it is just bad journalism to write this story without first calling up Stephen Souza. I cannot imagine why you didn’t call him first. You are under no deadline pressure. Just hold the story for a few hours until you can get ahold of him, and ask him why his company’s phone was used for a survey.

    You still could have ethically published your story, but only if you included his explanation (even if you doubted it).

    To say that he (or anyone else you attack) has the right to respond in the comments section of this blog is total b.s. He may have never seen your blog posting, and his explanation never would have been seen by your readers.

    I realize that most of the readers of this blog share your prejudices and hence will believe your attacks on individuals you enjoy attacking, regardless of their facts. But when you ceaselessly publish attacks on people in Davis and only later go back to ask them if they are true, even your toadies will have to doubt the fairness of what you publish.

  61. I received a call which identified the caller as ultra clean.

    It was a poll asking about Measures Q and P. It also asked which school board candidates I was going to vote for.

  62. I received a call which identified the caller as ultra clean.

    It was a poll asking about Measures Q and P. It also asked which school board candidates I was going to vote for.

  63. I received a call which identified the caller as ultra clean.

    It was a poll asking about Measures Q and P. It also asked which school board candidates I was going to vote for.

  64. I received a call which identified the caller as ultra clean.

    It was a poll asking about Measures Q and P. It also asked which school board candidates I was going to vote for.

  65. “…the decision was made to inquire as to how this came to be and whether there is a legitimate reason why the company owned and run by a sitting Davis City Councilmember would be involved…”

    The above and other like statements in the article should probably have been presented as things to be clarified rather than written here as established fact. DPD made this distinction clear in his article when he described his plans to investigate this question.

  66. “…the decision was made to inquire as to how this came to be and whether there is a legitimate reason why the company owned and run by a sitting Davis City Councilmember would be involved…”

    The above and other like statements in the article should probably have been presented as things to be clarified rather than written here as established fact. DPD made this distinction clear in his article when he described his plans to investigate this question.

  67. “…the decision was made to inquire as to how this came to be and whether there is a legitimate reason why the company owned and run by a sitting Davis City Councilmember would be involved…”

    The above and other like statements in the article should probably have been presented as things to be clarified rather than written here as established fact. DPD made this distinction clear in his article when he described his plans to investigate this question.

  68. “…the decision was made to inquire as to how this came to be and whether there is a legitimate reason why the company owned and run by a sitting Davis City Councilmember would be involved…”

    The above and other like statements in the article should probably have been presented as things to be clarified rather than written here as established fact. DPD made this distinction clear in his article when he described his plans to investigate this question.

  73. Rich Rifkin couldn’t be more correct.

    Don’t claim to be objective when you post things like this that slander politicians you dislike without even calling them to get their side of the story.

    It’s your blog, you can do what you want with it. But it really hurts your integrity when you run stories like this.

    Maybe there was wrongdoing, maybe there wasn’t.

    Quite frankly, I see this as trashing a city council candidate up for re-election and drumming scandal where there may be none. Are you just hoping people will think of this “scandal” when your own wife runs for office against Souza?

    Sounds just as dirty to me.

  74. Rich Rifkin couldn’t be more correct.

    Don’t claim to be objective when you post things like this that slander politicians you dislike without even calling them to get their side of the story.

    It’s your blog, you can do what you want with it. But it really hurts your integrity when you run stories like this.

    Maybe there was wrongdoing, maybe there wasn’t.

    Quite frankly, I see this as trashing a city council candidate up for re-election and drumming scandal where there may be none. Are you just hoping people will think of this “scandal” when your own wife runs for office against Souza?

    Sounds just as dirty to me.

  75. Rich Rifkin couldn’t be more correct.

    Don’t claim to be objective when you post things like this that slander politicians you dislike without even calling them to get their side of the story.

    It’s your blog, you can do what you want with it. But it really hurts your integrity when you run stories like this.

    Maybe there was wrongdoing, maybe there wasn’t.

    Quite frankly, I see this as trashing a city council candidate up for re-election and drumming scandal where there may be none. Are you just hoping people will think of this “scandal” when your own wife runs for office against Souza?

    Sounds just as dirty to me.

  76. Rich Rifkin couldn’t be more correct.

    Don’t claim to be objective when you post things like this that slander politicians you dislike without even calling them to get their side of the story.

    It’s your blog, you can do what you want with it. But it really hurts your integrity when you run stories like this.

    Maybe there was wrongdoing, maybe there wasn’t.

    Quite frankly, I see this as trashing a city council candidate up for re-election and drumming scandal where there may be none. Are you just hoping people will think of this “scandal” when your own wife runs for office against Souza?

    Sounds just as dirty to me.

  81. I think he’s hoping that next time, there is a clearer separation between roles so that these issues don’t arise. I know I am.

    If there is any confusion here, it is as to why Souza is providing phone lines to any campaign from his place of business. It’s questioning the relationship between Souza and any number of entities. There are legitimate questions here that need to be addressed and they should not be silenced because Souza angrily denies that he has done nothing improper.

  82. I think he’s hoping that next time, there is a clearer separation between roles so that these issues don’t arise. I know I am.

    If there is any confusion here, it is as to why Souza is providing phone lines to any campaign from his place of business. It’s questioning the relationship between Souza and any number of entities. There are legitimate questions here that need to be addressed and they should not be silenced because Souza angrily denies that he has done nothing improper.

  83. I think he’s hoping that next time, there is a clearer separation between roles so that these issues don’t arise. I know I am.

    If there is any confusion here, it is as to why Souza is providing phone lines to any campaign from his place of business. It’s questioning the relationship between Souza and any number of entities. There are legitimate questions here that need to be addressed and they should not be silenced because Souza angrily denies that he has done nothing improper.

  84. I think he’s hoping that next time, there is a clearer separation between roles so that these issues don’t arise. I know I am.

    If there is any confusion here, it is as to why Souza is providing phone lines to any campaign from his place of business. It’s questioning the relationship between Souza and any number of entities. There are legitimate questions here that need to be addressed and they should not be silenced because Souza angrily denies that he has done nothing improper.

  85. Hardly, this is horribly improper. You don’t run an accusatory story that defames someone without trying to get the other side of the story. He wrote on his blog to get an answer to the question?

    Please. He could have called Souza up and asked, but didn’t. There may or may not be wrongdoing by Souza, but publishing this story without investigation is practically campaigning for Cecilia Greenwald.

  86. Hardly, this is horribly improper. You don’t run an accusatory story that defames someone without trying to get the other side of the story. He wrote on his blog to get an answer to the question?

    Please. He could have called Souza up and asked, but didn’t. There may or may not be wrongdoing by Souza, but publishing this story without investigation is practically campaigning for Cecilia Greenwald.

  87. Hardly, this is horribly improper. You don’t run an accusatory story that defames someone without trying to get the other side of the story. He wrote on his blog to get an answer to the question?

    Please. He could have called Souza up and asked, but didn’t. There may or may not be wrongdoing by Souza, but publishing this story without investigation is practically campaigning for Cecilia Greenwald.

  88. Hardly, this is horribly improper. You don’t run an accusatory story that defames someone without trying to get the other side of the story. He wrote on his blog to get an answer to the question?

    Please. He could have called Souza up and asked, but didn’t. There may or may not be wrongdoing by Souza, but publishing this story without investigation is practically campaigning for Cecilia Greenwald.

  89. If he had called up Souza, he would be in the same place we are now–Souza denying, witnesses claiming otherwise. Then what? He asked the questions in public, he was transparent in his request from the city attorney, that seemed very reasonable to me. Nowhere did he state that Souza had committed wrongdoing.

  90. If he had called up Souza, he would be in the same place we are now–Souza denying, witnesses claiming otherwise. Then what? He asked the questions in public, he was transparent in his request from the city attorney, that seemed very reasonable to me. Nowhere did he state that Souza had committed wrongdoing.

  91. If he had called up Souza, he would be in the same place we are now–Souza denying, witnesses claiming otherwise. Then what? He asked the questions in public, he was transparent in his request from the city attorney, that seemed very reasonable to me. Nowhere did he state that Souza had committed wrongdoing.

  92. If he had called up Souza, he would be in the same place we are now–Souza denying, witnesses claiming otherwise. Then what? He asked the questions in public, he was transparent in his request from the city attorney, that seemed very reasonable to me. Nowhere did he state that Souza had committed wrongdoing.

  93. We’ve all seen Fox News talk about Barack Obama and such enough to know that implication can be just as damning as a specific claim.

    One-sided slander.

  94. We’ve all seen Fox News talk about Barack Obama and such enough to know that implication can be just as damning as a specific claim.

    One-sided slander.

  95. We’ve all seen Fox News talk about Barack Obama and such enough to know that implication can be just as damning as a specific claim.

    One-sided slander.

  96. We’ve all seen Fox News talk about Barack Obama and such enough to know that implication can be just as damning as a specific claim.

    One-sided slander.

  105. grammar girl:

    You’re right, he is fair game, it’s not libel because he’s a public figure. DPD is free to write whatever he wants in his blog. But it really makes me question his integrity when he doesn’t investigate a story and writes something so defamatory in his blog which so clearly has not been researched thoroughly.

    And as I said before, it especially bothers me that he would write something like that about a candidate running against his wife in the upcoming city council elections.

    Maybe Souza did something wrong, maybe he didn’t. I don’t really like or dislike him. But the manner in which this story was written and researched bothers me on a journalistic level. It feels dishonest and biased.

  106. grammar girl:

    You’re right, he is fair game, it’s not libel because he’s a public figure. DPD is free to write whatever he wants in his blog. But it really makes me question his integrity when he doesn’t investigate a story and writes something so defamatory in his blog which so clearly has not been researched thoroughly.

    And as I said before, it especially bothers me that he would write something like that about a candidate running against his wife in the upcoming city council elections.

    Maybe Souza did something wrong, maybe he didn’t. I don’t really like or dislike him. But the manner in which this story was written and researched bothers me on a journalistic level. It feels dishonest and biased.

  107. grammar girl:

    You’re right, he is fair game, it’s not libel because he’s a public figure. DPD is free to write whatever he wants in his blog. But it really makes me question his integrity when he doesn’t investigate a story and writes something so defamatory in his blog which so clearly has not been researched thoroughly.

    And as I said before, it especially bothers me that he would write something like that about a candidate running against his wife in the upcoming city council elections.

    Maybe Souza did something wrong, maybe he didn’t. I don’t really like or dislike him. But the manner in which this story was written and researched bothers me on a journalistic level. It feels dishonest and biased.

  108. grammar girl:

    You’re right, he is fair game, it’s not libel because he’s a public figure. DPD is free to write whatever he wants in his blog. But it really makes me question his integrity when he doesn’t investigate a story and writes something so defamatory in his blog which so clearly has not been researched thoroughly.

    And as I said before, it especially bothers me that he would write something like that about a candidate running against his wife in the upcoming city council elections.

    Maybe Souza did something wrong, maybe he didn’t. I don’t really like or dislike him. But the manner in which this story was written and researched bothers me on a journalistic level. It feels dishonest and biased.

  109. Rich Rifkin – You of all people are not in a position to call people unethical by journalistic standards. One only needs to read – – if they can stomach such reading — your articles to see how you attack people without talking to them first.

    Yor are the kind of jounalist that likes to write only to appease those in positions of power (majority) rather than ask the tough questions on everyones mind.

    Thank you for asking the tough questions Doug Paul Davis, someone has to.

    Mary – a Davis voter

  110. Rich Rifkin – You of all people are not in a position to call people unethical by journalistic standards. One only needs to read – – if they can stomach such reading — your articles to see how you attack people without talking to them first.

    Yor are the kind of jounalist that likes to write only to appease those in positions of power (majority) rather than ask the tough questions on everyones mind.

    Thank you for asking the tough questions Doug Paul Davis, someone has to.

    Mary – a Davis voter

  111. Rich Rifkin – You of all people are not in a position to call people unethical by journalistic standards. One only needs to read – – if they can stomach such reading — your articles to see how you attack people without talking to them first.

    Yor are the kind of jounalist that likes to write only to appease those in positions of power (majority) rather than ask the tough questions on everyones mind.

    Thank you for asking the tough questions Doug Paul Davis, someone has to.

    Mary – a Davis voter

  112. Rich Rifkin – You of all people are not in a position to call people unethical by journalistic standards. One only needs to read – – if they can stomach such reading — your articles to see how you attack people without talking to them first.

    Yor are the kind of jounalist that likes to write only to appease those in positions of power (majority) rather than ask the tough questions on everyones mind.

    Thank you for asking the tough questions Doug Paul Davis, someone has to.

    Mary – a Davis voter

  113. My thoughts:

    Upon being called on the Senior Citizens merger, Souza suggested that he had only meant to generate conversation and discussion. “It was an idea. I’m sorry if it was misunderstood.”

    When Souza proposed changing the city’s anti-discrimination ordinance, he argued that he “had not really intended to do anything more than raise the issue for the “purposes of discussion.”

    And of course, when he approved a request for proposal for the park tax poll,

    “This an RFP, it is a request for proposals, it’s not an adoption of a proposal, it’s not the acceptance of a proposal, it was just a request for proposals. So if we consider this, all we’re considering is putting out a request for proposals. I see no harm in putting out a request for proposals. We then would then if we had a proposal come back to us, we would then have to accept the proposal or reject the proposal.”

    Of course, once approved, the policy was de facto implemented.

    So I say Souza should be the last one on this planet to complain about someone else “just asking (important) questions” about his business dealings as they relate or do not relate to city business.

  114. My thoughts:

    Upon being called on the Senior Citizens merger, Souza suggested that he had only meant to generate conversation and discussion. “It was an idea. I’m sorry if it was misunderstood.”

    When Souza proposed changing the city’s anti-discrimination ordinance, he argued that he “had not really intended to do anything more than raise the issue for the “purposes of discussion.”

    And of course, when he approved a request for proposal for the park tax poll,

    “This an RFP, it is a request for proposals, it’s not an adoption of a proposal, it’s not the acceptance of a proposal, it was just a request for proposals. So if we consider this, all we’re considering is putting out a request for proposals. I see no harm in putting out a request for proposals. We then would then if we had a proposal come back to us, we would then have to accept the proposal or reject the proposal.”

    Of course, once approved, the policy was de facto implemented.

    So I say Souza should be the last one on this planet to complain about someone else “just asking (important) questions” about his business dealings as they relate or do not relate to city business.

  115. My thoughts:

    Upon being called on the Senior Citizens merger, Souza suggested that he had only meant to generate conversation and discussion. “It was an idea. I’m sorry if it was misunderstood.”

    When Souza proposed changing the city’s anti-discrimination ordinance, he argued that he “had not really intended to do anything more than raise the issue for the “purposes of discussion.”

    And of course, when he approved a request for proposal for the park tax poll,

    “This an RFP, it is a request for proposals, it’s not an adoption of a proposal, it’s not the acceptance of a proposal, it was just a request for proposals. So if we consider this, all we’re considering is putting out a request for proposals. I see no harm in putting out a request for proposals. We then would then if we had a proposal come back to us, we would then have to accept the proposal or reject the proposal.”

    Of course, once approved, the policy was de facto implemented.

    So I say Souza should be the last one on this planet to complain about someone else “just asking (important) questions” about his business dealings as they relate or do not relate to city business.

  116. My thoughts:

    Upon being called on the Senior Citizens merger, Souza suggested that he had only meant to generate conversation and discussion. “It was an idea. I’m sorry if it was misunderstood.”

    When Souza proposed changing the city’s anti-discrimination ordinance, he argued that he “had not really intended to do anything more than raise the issue for the “purposes of discussion.”

    And of course, when he approved a request for proposal for the park tax poll,

    “This an RFP, it is a request for proposals, it’s not an adoption of a proposal, it’s not the acceptance of a proposal, it was just a request for proposals. So if we consider this, all we’re considering is putting out a request for proposals. I see no harm in putting out a request for proposals. We then would then if we had a proposal come back to us, we would then have to accept the proposal or reject the proposal.”

    Of course, once approved, the policy was de facto implemented.

    So I say Souza should be the last one on this planet to complain about someone else “just asking (important) questions” about his business dealings as they relate or do not relate to city business.

  117. Anonymous 101:

    It was an interesting format, because his investigation was the story. He chose to do it publicly rather than privately. It’s an interesting approach. I don’t know if I would have done it that way. But the letter he sent and article he wrote asked questions–tough questions. Perhaps it happened just a described by Steve, perhaps there is more to it than that. I kind of appreciate the transparency of such efforts but at the same time, I can see where you are coming from.

  118. Anonymous 101:

    It was an interesting format, because his investigation was the story. He chose to do it publicly rather than privately. It’s an interesting approach. I don’t know if I would have done it that way. But the letter he sent and article he wrote asked questions–tough questions. Perhaps it happened just a described by Steve, perhaps there is more to it than that. I kind of appreciate the transparency of such efforts but at the same time, I can see where you are coming from.

  119. Anonymous 101:

    It was an interesting format, because his investigation was the story. He chose to do it publicly rather than privately. It’s an interesting approach. I don’t know if I would have done it that way. But the letter he sent and article he wrote asked questions–tough questions. Perhaps it happened just a described by Steve, perhaps there is more to it than that. I kind of appreciate the transparency of such efforts but at the same time, I can see where you are coming from.

  120. Anonymous 101:

    It was an interesting format, because his investigation was the story. He chose to do it publicly rather than privately. It’s an interesting approach. I don’t know if I would have done it that way. But the letter he sent and article he wrote asked questions–tough questions. Perhaps it happened just a described by Steve, perhaps there is more to it than that. I kind of appreciate the transparency of such efforts but at the same time, I can see where you are coming from.

  121. The tangled web of relationships, social, business and financial that exist in this small town plays a large role that affects the future of our city. Councilman Souza
    is fair game here as he has significant business relationships with major Davis developers. We are all aware that the next School Board will be making decisions concerning the sale of DJUSD property for potential residential development.

  122. The tangled web of relationships, social, business and financial that exist in this small town plays a large role that affects the future of our city. Councilman Souza
    is fair game here as he has significant business relationships with major Davis developers. We are all aware that the next School Board will be making decisions concerning the sale of DJUSD property for potential residential development.

  123. The tangled web of relationships, social, business and financial that exist in this small town plays a large role that affects the future of our city. Councilman Souza
    is fair game here as he has significant business relationships with major Davis developers. We are all aware that the next School Board will be making decisions concerning the sale of DJUSD property for potential residential development.

  124. The tangled web of relationships, social, business and financial that exist in this small town plays a large role that affects the future of our city. Councilman Souza
    is fair game here as he has significant business relationships with major Davis developers. We are all aware that the next School Board will be making decisions concerning the sale of DJUSD property for potential residential development.

  125. This is as bad as Talia Kennedy, who was also known to publish inflammatory stories which had accusations but no substantiation. Have you sunk to that level?

  126. This is as bad as Talia Kennedy, who was also known to publish inflammatory stories which had accusations but no substantiation. Have you sunk to that level?

  127. This is as bad as Talia Kennedy, who was also known to publish inflammatory stories which had accusations but no substantiation. Have you sunk to that level?

  128. This is as bad as Talia Kennedy, who was also known to publish inflammatory stories which had accusations but no substantiation. Have you sunk to that level?

  129. With all of the responses – angry and outraged, curious and perplexed, appreciative and disgusted, there are still that darn unanswered questions.

    Godbe Research is doing the parks use survey for MIG, Inc. Godbe Research did the survey for Measure G and the school board race using Councilperson Steve Souza’s business phone line.

    Who is Godbe Research? Why don’t they have their own phones to do their surveys instead of using Steve Souza’s business phone?

  130. With all of the responses – angry and outraged, curious and perplexed, appreciative and disgusted, there are still that darn unanswered questions.

    Godbe Research is doing the parks use survey for MIG, Inc. Godbe Research did the survey for Measure G and the school board race using Councilperson Steve Souza’s business phone line.

    Who is Godbe Research? Why don’t they have their own phones to do their surveys instead of using Steve Souza’s business phone?

  131. With all of the responses – angry and outraged, curious and perplexed, appreciative and disgusted, there are still that darn unanswered questions.

    Godbe Research is doing the parks use survey for MIG, Inc. Godbe Research did the survey for Measure G and the school board race using Councilperson Steve Souza’s business phone line.

    Who is Godbe Research? Why don’t they have their own phones to do their surveys instead of using Steve Souza’s business phone?

  132. With all of the responses – angry and outraged, curious and perplexed, appreciative and disgusted, there are still that darn unanswered questions.

    Godbe Research is doing the parks use survey for MIG, Inc. Godbe Research did the survey for Measure G and the school board race using Councilperson Steve Souza’s business phone line.

    Who is Godbe Research? Why don’t they have their own phones to do their surveys instead of using Steve Souza’s business phone?

  141. Well, now that my views about this being slanderous and politically motivated are out of the way…

    I’m not sure why it’s showing up at Ultra Clean Pools for the caller ID. Maybe there’s something to it. I looked around, Godbe Research is located at http://www.godberesearch.com/

    No connection that I’ve found yet.

  142. Well, now that my views about this being slanderous and politically motivated are out of the way…

    I’m not sure why it’s showing up at Ultra Clean Pools for the caller ID. Maybe there’s something to it. I looked around, Godbe Research is located at http://www.godberesearch.com/

    No connection that I’ve found yet.

  143. Well, now that my views about this being slanderous and politically motivated are out of the way…

    I’m not sure why it’s showing up at Ultra Clean Pools for the caller ID. Maybe there’s something to it. I looked around, Godbe Research is located at http://www.godberesearch.com/

    No connection that I’ve found yet.

  144. Well, now that my views about this being slanderous and politically motivated are out of the way…

    I’m not sure why it’s showing up at Ultra Clean Pools for the caller ID. Maybe there’s something to it. I looked around, Godbe Research is located at http://www.godberesearch.com/

    No connection that I’ve found yet.

  145. Transparancy in government is a good thing. It is VERY SIMPLE.

    Don’t try to fool the voters.
    Don’t try to fool the taxpayers.
    Don’t try to fool residents of the city in which you are a sitting councilmember.

    Councilmember Souza has a business…a pool cleaning business in which he is part owner.

    He is a sitting councilmember.

    He voted, as part of the council majority, to pay a business $75,000 (a lot of money when the city is short on money) to conduct a survey that well paid city staff could have conducted.

    This business that was paid did the polling using ULTRA CLEAN POOL’s phone lines which appeared on caller ID.

    They also asked questions about Measures P and Q (two measures that I support) and school board candidates.

    These are all facts WITHOUT any council or Davis Enterprise spin added.

    Rich Rifkin (who is a columnist paid by the Enterprise) and others are mad, because questions are being asked about political behavior that appears to be UNETHICAL or at the very least not good in the eyes of tax payers.

    As a sitting member of the council Souza should know better.

    An independent auditor needs to look into the way the city and the council conduct business.

    We the taxpayers have a right to know.

    Thank you Vanguard for shedding light on this issues.

  147. Transparancy in government is a good thing. It is VERY SIMPLE.

    Don’t try to fool the voters.
    Don’t try to fool the taxpayers.
    Don’t try to fool residents of the city in which you are a sitting councilmember.

    Councilmember Souza has a business…a pool cleaning business in which he is part owner.

    He is a sitting councilmember.

    He voted, as part of the council majority, to pay a business $75,000 (a lot of money when the city is short on money) to conduct a survey that well paid city staff could have conducted.

    This business that was paid did the polling using ULTRA CLEAN POOL’s phone lines which appeared on caller ID.

    They also asked questions about Measures P and Q (two measures that I support) and school board candidates.

    These are all facts WITHOUT any council or Davis Enterprise spin added.

    Rich Rifkin (who is a columnist paid by the Enterprise) and others are mad, because questions are being asked about political behavior that appears to be UNETHICAL or at the very least not good in the eyes of tax payers.

    As a sitting member of the council Souza should know better.

    An independent auditor needs to look into the way the city and the council conduct business.

    We the taxpayers have a right to know.

    Thank you Vanguard for shedding light on this issues.

  149. Transparancy in government is a good thing. It is VERY SIMPLE.

    Don’t try to fool the voters.
    Don’t try to fool the taxpayers.
    Don’t try to fool residents of the city in which you are a sitting councilmember.

    Councilmember Souza has a business…a pool cleaning business in which he is part owner.

    He is a sitting councilmember.

    He voted, as part of the council majority, to pay a business $75,000 (a lot of money when the city is short on money) to conduct a survey that well paid city staff could have conducted.

    This business that was paid did the polling using ULTRA CLEAN POOL’s phone lines which appeared on caller ID.

    They also asked questions about Measures P and Q (two measures that I support) and school board candidates.

    These are all facts WITHOUT any council or Davis Enterprise spin added.

    Rich Rifkin (who is a columnist paid by the Enterprise) and others are mad, because questions are being asked about political behavior that appears to be UNETHICAL or at the very least not good in the eyes of tax payers.

    As a sitting member of the council Souza should know better.

    An independent auditor needs to look into the way the city and the council conduct business.

    We the taxpayers have a right to know.

    Thank you Vanguard for shedding light on this issues.

  151. Transparancy in government is a good thing. It is VERY SIMPLE.

    Don’t try to fool the voters.
    Don’t try to fool the taxpayers.
    Don’t try to fool residents of the city in which you are a sitting councilmember.

    Councilmember Souza has a business…a pool cleaning business in which he is part owner.

    He is a sitting councilmember.

    He voted, as part of the council majority, to pay a business $75,000 (a lot of money when the city is short on money) to conduct a survey that well paid city staff could have conducted.

    This business that was paid did the polling using ULTRA CLEAN POOL’s phone lines which appeared on caller ID.

    They also asked questions about Measures P and Q (two measures that I support) and school board candidates.

    These are all facts WITHOUT any council or Davis Enterprise spin added.

    Rich Rifkin (who is a columnist paid by the Enterprise) and others are mad, because questions are being asked about political behavior that appears to be UNETHICAL or at the very least not good in the eyes of tax payers.

    As a sitting member of the council Souza should know better.

    An independent auditor needs to look into the way the city and the council conduct business.

    We the taxpayers have a right to know.

    Thank you Vanguard for shedding light on this issues.

  153. If bad journalism means asking questions then we need more of what ou refer to as bad jounalism.

    Why is it that Rifkin and the Enterprise can spin any story their way and it’s okay. However, when the voters and taxpayers ask questions it is called, “bad.”

    If you look on their website
    http://www.godberesearch.com/

    it lists that they are conducting surveys for:

    Davis Joint Unified School District Parcel Tax Committee

    Davis Park & Recreation Parcel Tax Campaign

    Therefore, Councilmember Souza should not have allowed them to use his phone lines. Period.

    Also, nowhere does it state that they are conducting a survey for the school board race.

    Too many hands in the cookie jar and they’ve been caught.

  154. If bad journalism means asking questions then we need more of what ou refer to as bad jounalism.

    Why is it that Rifkin and the Enterprise can spin any story their way and it’s okay. However, when the voters and taxpayers ask questions it is called, “bad.”

    If you look on their website
    http://www.godberesearch.com/

    it lists that they are conducting surveys for:

    Davis Joint Unified School District Parcel Tax Committee

    Davis Park & Recreation Parcel Tax Campaign

    Therefore, Councilmember Souza should not have allowed them to use his phone lines. Period.

    Also, nowhere does it state that they are conducting a survey for the school board race.

    Too many hands in the cookie jar and they’ve been caught.

  155. If bad journalism means asking questions then we need more of what ou refer to as bad jounalism.

    Why is it that Rifkin and the Enterprise can spin any story their way and it’s okay. However, when the voters and taxpayers ask questions it is called, “bad.”

    If you look on their website
    http://www.godberesearch.com/

    it lists that they are conducting surveys for:

    Davis Joint Unified School District Parcel Tax Committee

    Davis Park & Recreation Parcel Tax Campaign

    Therefore, Councilmember Souza should not have allowed them to use his phone lines. Period.

    Also, nowhere does it state that they are conducting a survey for the school board race.

    Too many hands in the cookie jar and they’ve been caught.

  156. If bad journalism means asking questions then we need more of what ou refer to as bad jounalism.

    Why is it that Rifkin and the Enterprise can spin any story their way and it’s okay. However, when the voters and taxpayers ask questions it is called, “bad.”

    If you look on their website
    http://www.godberesearch.com/

    it lists that they are conducting surveys for:

    Davis Joint Unified School District Parcel Tax Committee

    Davis Park & Recreation Parcel Tax Campaign

    Therefore, Councilmember Souza should not have allowed them to use his phone lines. Period.

    Also, nowhere does it state that they are conducting a survey for the school board race.

    Too many hands in the cookie jar and they’ve been caught.

  161. [Anonymous said…

    also, i don’t think anyone ever said it was libelous. people just said it was defamatory and bad journalism.]

    The law of libel is subsumed within the more generation category of defamation. So, in this instance, they are one and the same.

    I guess I shouldn’t be surprised at the confusion, though, as Bob Dunning has probably set a Davis record for erroneously claims of libel in his column over the years, and, amazingly enough, he actually went to law school.

    –Richard Estes

  162. Godbe has not used my cell phone or my home phone number. I have no relationship with them or there survey. The 3 question automated phone poll I conducted on school board candidates and Measure Q is completely separate from the live survey that Godbe Research is conducting on parks and recreation. The poll I conducted has a caller ID on it and I put one of my cell phone numbers on it. In the Godbe Research live survey there are no questions on the school board candidates or Measure Q.

  163. [Anonymous said…

    also, i don’t think anyone ever said it was libelous. people just said it was defamatory and bad journalism.]

    The law of libel is subsumed within the more generation category of defamation. So, in this instance, they are one and the same.

    I guess I shouldn’t be surprised at the confusion, though, as Bob Dunning has probably set a Davis record for erroneously claims of libel in his column over the years, and, amazingly enough, he actually went to law school.

    –Richard Estes

  164. Godbe has not used my cell phone or my home phone number. I have no relationship with them or there survey. The 3 question automated phone poll I conducted on school board candidates and Measure Q is completely separate from the live survey that Godbe Research is conducting on parks and recreation. The poll I conducted has a caller ID on it and I put one of my cell phone numbers on it. In the Godbe Research live survey there are no questions on the school board candidates or Measure Q.

  165. [Anonymous said…

    also, i don’t think anyone ever said it was libelous. people just said it was defamatory and bad journalism.]

    The law of libel is subsumed within the more generation category of defamation. So, in this instance, they are one and the same.

    I guess I shouldn’t be surprised at the confusion, though, as Bob Dunning has probably set a Davis record for erroneously claims of libel in his column over the years, and, amazingly enough, he actually went to law school.

    –Richard Estes

  166. Godbe has not used my cell phone or my home phone number. I have no relationship with them or there survey. The 3 question automated phone poll I conducted on school board candidates and Measure Q is completely separate from the live survey that Godbe Research is conducting on parks and recreation. The poll I conducted has a caller ID on it and I put one of my cell phone numbers on it. In the Godbe Research live survey there are no questions on the school board candidates or Measure Q.

  167. [Anonymous said…

    also, i don’t think anyone ever said it was libelous. people just said it was defamatory and bad journalism.]

    The law of libel is subsumed within the more generation category of defamation. So, in this instance, they are one and the same.

    I guess I shouldn’t be surprised at the confusion, though, as Bob Dunning has probably set a Davis record for erroneously claims of libel in his column over the years, and, amazingly enough, he actually went to law school.

    –Richard Estes

  168. Godbe has not used my cell phone or my home phone number. I have no relationship with them or there survey. The 3 question automated phone poll I conducted on school board candidates and Measure Q is completely separate from the live survey that Godbe Research is conducting on parks and recreation. The poll I conducted has a caller ID on it and I put one of my cell phone numbers on it. In the Godbe Research live survey there are no questions on the school board candidates or Measure Q.

  173. “Rich Rifkin – You of all people are not in a position to call people unethical by journalistic standards. One only needs to read – – if they can stomach such reading — your articles to see how you attack people without talking to them first.”

    I’m surprised by your vitriolic attack against me, here, Mary. Maybe you could point to some specific examples of unfounded attacks against people I’ve made in my column?

    The problem is ultimately not that David Greenwald didn’t speak with Mr. Souza, first. It’s that he didn’t know if his facts about Souza’s relationship with the city’s vendor were true, and he failed to ask the obvious person (Souza) to confirm or deny or explain before he came forth with his accusations.

    Mary seems to be an expert on my writings. I wonder if she could ever point to anything I wrote which I didn’t know if it was true and at the same time failed to ask the person involved.

    “Rich Rifkin (who is a columnist paid by the Enterprise) and others are mad, because questions are being asked about political behavior that appears to be UNETHICAL or at the very least not good in the eyes of tax payers.”

    This is completely untrue. In fact, if David Greenwald has uncovered unethical behavior, I applaud him. My irritation is with the journalistic approach of Mr. Greenwald, as I explained above. (By the way, I don’t agree with the person who dragged Greenwald’s wife into this. Regardless of her candidacy, if the story is true it’s an important breach of public trust and it must be told.)

    I think it is very hard for extreme partisans to understand that I am not a partisan. I happen to be on good terms with most people on both sides of the Davis political divide. I believe a fair reading of my column would reveal that I am in favor of positions which differ at times with both the council majority and minority.

    “Why is it that Rifkin and the Enterprise can spin any story their way and it’s okay. However, when the voters and taxpayers ask questions it is called, “bad.”

    I’m not a taxpayer?

    It is true that I am paid by the Enterprise to write my column. However, I am not an Enterprise employee. I have nothing whatsoever to do with the management or editing of the newspaper, with any content other than my own columns or anything to do with any Enterprise reporters.

    Now, as far as “spinning a story my way,” I don’t know what the hell you are talking about. Exactly what spin did I put on a story that so offended you?

  174. “Rich Rifkin – You of all people are not in a position to call people unethical by journalistic standards. One only needs to read – – if they can stomach such reading — your articles to see how you attack people without talking to them first.”

    I’m surprised by your vitriolic attack against me, here, Mary. Maybe you could point to some specific examples of unfounded attacks against people I’ve made in my column?

    The problem is ultimately not that David Greenwald didn’t speak with Mr. Souza, first. It’s that he didn’t know if his facts about Souza’s relationship with the city’s vendor were true, and he failed to ask the obvious person (Souza) to confirm or deny or explain before he came forth with his accusations.

    Mary seems to be an expert on my writings. I wonder if she could ever point to anything I wrote which I didn’t know if it was true and at the same time failed to ask the person involved.

    “Rich Rifkin (who is a columnist paid by the Enterprise) and others are mad, because questions are being asked about political behavior that appears to be UNETHICAL or at the very least not good in the eyes of tax payers.”

    This is completely untrue. In fact, if David Greenwald has uncovered unethical behavior, I applaud him. My irritation is with the journalistic approach of Mr. Greenwald, as I explained above. (By the way, I don’t agree with the person who dragged Greenwald’s wife into this. Regardless of her candidacy, if the story is true it’s an important breach of public trust and it must be told.)

    I think it is very hard for extreme partisans to understand that I am not a partisan. I happen to be on good terms with most people on both sides of the Davis political divide. I believe a fair reading of my column would reveal that I am in favor of positions which differ at times with both the council majority and minority.

    “Why is it that Rifkin and the Enterprise can spin any story their way and it’s okay. However, when the voters and taxpayers ask questions it is called, “bad.”

    I’m not a taxpayer?

    It is true that I am paid by the Enterprise to write my column. However, I am not an Enterprise employee. I have nothing whatsoever to do with the management or editing of the newspaper, with any content other than my own columns or anything to do with any Enterprise reporters.

    Now, as far as “spinning a story my way,” I don’t know what the hell you are talking about. Exactly what spin did I put on a story that so offended you?

  175. “Rich Rifkin – You of all people are not in a position to call people unethical by journalistic standards. One only needs to read – – if they can stomach such reading — your articles to see how you attack people without talking to them first.”

    I’m surprised by your vitriolic attack against me, here, Mary. Maybe you could point to some specific examples of unfounded attacks against people I’ve made in my column?

    The problem is ultimately not that David Greenwald didn’t speak with Mr. Souza, first. It’s that he didn’t know if his facts about Souza’s relationship with the city’s vendor were true, and he failed to ask the obvious person (Souza) to confirm or deny or explain before he came forth with his accusations.

    Mary seems to be an expert on my writings. I wonder if she could ever point to anything I wrote which I didn’t know if it was true and at the same time failed to ask the person involved.

    “Rich Rifkin (who is a columnist paid by the Enterprise) and others are mad, because questions are being asked about political behavior that appears to be UNETHICAL or at the very least not good in the eyes of tax payers.”

    This is completely untrue. In fact, if David Greenwald has uncovered unethical behavior, I applaud him. My irritation is with the journalistic approach of Mr. Greenwald, as I explained above. (By the way, I don’t agree with the person who dragged Greenwald’s wife into this. Regardless of her candidacy, if the story is true it’s an important breach of public trust and it must be told.)

    I think it is very hard for extreme partisans to understand that I am not a partisan. I happen to be on good terms with most people on both sides of the Davis political divide. I believe a fair reading of my column would reveal that I am in favor of positions which differ at times with both the council majority and minority.

    “Why is it that Rifkin and the Enterprise can spin any story their way and it’s okay. However, when the voters and taxpayers ask questions it is called, “bad.”

    I’m not a taxpayer?

    It is true that I am paid by the Enterprise to write my column. However, I am not an Enterprise employee. I have nothing whatsoever to do with the management or editing of the newspaper, with any content other than my own columns or anything to do with any Enterprise reporters.

    Now, as far as “spinning a story my way,” I don’t know what the hell you are talking about. Exactly what spin did I put on a story that so offended you?

  176. “Rich Rifkin – You of all people are not in a position to call people unethical by journalistic standards. One only needs to read – – if they can stomach such reading — your articles to see how you attack people without talking to them first.”

    I’m surprised by your vitriolic attack against me, here, Mary. Maybe you could point to some specific examples of unfounded attacks against people I’ve made in my column?

    The problem is ultimately not that David Greenwald didn’t speak with Mr. Souza, first. It’s that he didn’t know if his facts about Souza’s relationship with the city’s vendor were true, and he failed to ask the obvious person (Souza) to confirm or deny or explain before he came forth with his accusations.

    Mary seems to be an expert on my writings. I wonder if she could ever point to anything I wrote which I didn’t know if it was true and at the same time failed to ask the person involved.

    “Rich Rifkin (who is a columnist paid by the Enterprise) and others are mad, because questions are being asked about political behavior that appears to be UNETHICAL or at the very least not good in the eyes of tax payers.”

    This is completely untrue. In fact, if David Greenwald has uncovered unethical behavior, I applaud him. My irritation is with the journalistic approach of Mr. Greenwald, as I explained above. (By the way, I don’t agree with the person who dragged Greenwald’s wife into this. Regardless of her candidacy, if the story is true it’s an important breach of public trust and it must be told.)

    I think it is very hard for extreme partisans to understand that I am not a partisan. I happen to be on good terms with most people on both sides of the Davis political divide. I believe a fair reading of my column would reveal that I am in favor of positions which differ at times with both the council majority and minority.

    “Why is it that Rifkin and the Enterprise can spin any story their way and it’s okay. However, when the voters and taxpayers ask questions it is called, “bad.”

    I’m not a taxpayer?

    It is true that I am paid by the Enterprise to write my column. However, I am not an Enterprise employee. I have nothing whatsoever to do with the management or editing of the newspaper, with any content other than my own columns or anything to do with any Enterprise reporters.

    Now, as far as “spinning a story my way,” I don’t know what the hell you are talking about. Exactly what spin did I put on a story that so offended you?

  177. So this is all a big misunderstanding caused by a lack of adequate research. Horray. Can we now delete this entry and get an apology to Souza for implicating that he was swindling the city?

    I’ve had my drama for the day.

  178. So this is all a big misunderstanding caused by a lack of adequate research. Horray. Can we now delete this entry and get an apology to Souza for implicating that he was swindling the city?

    I’ve had my drama for the day.

  179. So this is all a big misunderstanding caused by a lack of adequate research. Horray. Can we now delete this entry and get an apology to Souza for implicating that he was swindling the city?

    I’ve had my drama for the day.

  180. So this is all a big misunderstanding caused by a lack of adequate research. Horray. Can we now delete this entry and get an apology to Souza for implicating that he was swindling the city?

    I’ve had my drama for the day.

  181. I am a citizen who is interested in the outcome of Measure Q. It will have an effect on our community and I wanted to see if it was passing. I wanted to see if I needed to do more to help assure its passage.

  182. I am a citizen who is interested in the outcome of Measure Q. It will have an effect on our community and I wanted to see if it was passing. I wanted to see if I needed to do more to help assure its passage.

  183. I am a citizen who is interested in the outcome of Measure Q. It will have an effect on our community and I wanted to see if it was passing. I wanted to see if I needed to do more to help assure its passage.

  184. I am a citizen who is interested in the outcome of Measure Q. It will have an effect on our community and I wanted to see if it was passing. I wanted to see if I needed to do more to help assure its passage.

  185. “I am a citizen who is interested in the outcome of Measure Q. It will have an effect on our community and I wanted to see if it was passing. I wanted to see if I needed to do more to help assure its passage.”

    I was reserving judgment until I read this!

  186. “I am a citizen who is interested in the outcome of Measure Q. It will have an effect on our community and I wanted to see if it was passing. I wanted to see if I needed to do more to help assure its passage.”

    I was reserving judgment until I read this!

  187. “I am a citizen who is interested in the outcome of Measure Q. It will have an effect on our community and I wanted to see if it was passing. I wanted to see if I needed to do more to help assure its passage.”

    I was reserving judgment until I read this!

  188. “I am a citizen who is interested in the outcome of Measure Q. It will have an effect on our community and I wanted to see if it was passing. I wanted to see if I needed to do more to help assure its passage.”

    I was reserving judgment until I read this!

  193. By the way, if this “scandal” involved Sue Greenwald or Lamar Heystek, I guarantee DPD calls them and gets their side before shooting his mouth off on here.

  194. By the way, if this “scandal” involved Sue Greenwald or Lamar Heystek, I guarantee DPD calls them and gets their side before shooting his mouth off on here.

  195. By the way, if this “scandal” involved Sue Greenwald or Lamar Heystek, I guarantee DPD calls them and gets their side before shooting his mouth off on here.

  196. By the way, if this “scandal” involved Sue Greenwald or Lamar Heystek, I guarantee DPD calls them and gets their side before shooting his mouth off on here.

  197. Oh…..and Coucilman Souza.. polling the School Board candidates? …perhaps to see how Schelen and Spector were doing?… they are the ones who would most likely resist selling off DJUSD property to your developer patrons.

  198. Oh…..and Coucilman Souza.. polling the School Board candidates? …perhaps to see how Schelen and Spector were doing?… they are the ones who would most likely resist selling off DJUSD property to your developer patrons.

  199. Oh…..and Coucilman Souza.. polling the School Board candidates? …perhaps to see how Schelen and Spector were doing?… they are the ones who would most likely resist selling off DJUSD property to your developer patrons.

  200. Oh…..and Coucilman Souza.. polling the School Board candidates? …perhaps to see how Schelen and Spector were doing?… they are the ones who would most likely resist selling off DJUSD property to your developer patrons.

  201. John Watts said:
    “I was reserving judgment until I read this!”

    I agree! Souza appears to be clueless
    that our elected representatives ARE NOT ordinary citizens and that there are ethical boundaries that are implicit in being granted political power by the voters.

  202. John Watts said:
    “I was reserving judgment until I read this!”

    I agree! Souza appears to be clueless
    that our elected representatives ARE NOT ordinary citizens and that there are ethical boundaries that are implicit in being granted political power by the voters.

  203. John Watts said:
    “I was reserving judgment until I read this!”

    I agree! Souza appears to be clueless
    that our elected representatives ARE NOT ordinary citizens and that there are ethical boundaries that are implicit in being granted political power by the voters.

  204. John Watts said:
    “I was reserving judgment until I read this!”

    I agree! Souza appears to be clueless
    that our elected representatives ARE NOT ordinary citizens and that there are ethical boundaries that are implicit in being granted political power by the voters.

  205. The DJUSD has been wrestling with unethical business relationships for several years due to in part “moonlighting” by district employees at a firmed owned by the district’s former deputy superintendent for business and finance while on the district’s payroll. These conflicts of interest are the makings of corruption and cause bad public policy decisions usually costing the taxpayer and the government agency lots of money. Questions about the financial relationships between government employees and elected officials with the very vendors doing business with the government agency they work for or oversee are fundamental to good government and transparent government.

  206. The DJUSD has been wrestling with unethical business relationships for several years due to in part “moonlighting” by district employees at a firmed owned by the district’s former deputy superintendent for business and finance while on the district’s payroll. These conflicts of interest are the makings of corruption and cause bad public policy decisions usually costing the taxpayer and the government agency lots of money. Questions about the financial relationships between government employees and elected officials with the very vendors doing business with the government agency they work for or oversee are fundamental to good government and transparent government.

  207. The DJUSD has been wrestling with unethical business relationships for several years due to in part “moonlighting” by district employees at a firmed owned by the district’s former deputy superintendent for business and finance while on the district’s payroll. These conflicts of interest are the makings of corruption and cause bad public policy decisions usually costing the taxpayer and the government agency lots of money. Questions about the financial relationships between government employees and elected officials with the very vendors doing business with the government agency they work for or oversee are fundamental to good government and transparent government.

  208. The DJUSD has been wrestling with unethical business relationships for several years due to in part “moonlighting” by district employees at a firmed owned by the district’s former deputy superintendent for business and finance while on the district’s payroll. These conflicts of interest are the makings of corruption and cause bad public policy decisions usually costing the taxpayer and the government agency lots of money. Questions about the financial relationships between government employees and elected officials with the very vendors doing business with the government agency they work for or oversee are fundamental to good government and transparent government.

  209. All councilmembers, including Councilmember Stephen Souza need to be challenged and questioned about their financial dealings with those that do business with or attempt to do business with the city of Davis.

    Yesterday, the People’s Vanguard discussed the financial relationship between Don Saylor and West Yost and Associates to provide engineering services in support of the proposed water and sewage treatment projects which if approved will be over $300 million dollars in expenditures costing the ratepayers huge increases in their assessment fees.

    Today, the People’s Vanguard asked questions about Stephen Souza’s relationship with the consulting group, Moore Iacofano Goltsman, Inc., which currently has a $75,000.00 contract with the city of Davis to poll & survey the citizens of Davis.

  210. All councilmembers, including Councilmember Stephen Souza need to be challenged and questioned about their financial dealings with those that do business with or attempt to do business with the city of Davis.

    Yesterday, the People’s Vanguard discussed the financial relationship between Don Saylor and West Yost and Associates to provide engineering services in support of the proposed water and sewage treatment projects which if approved will be over $300 million dollars in expenditures costing the ratepayers huge increases in their assessment fees.

    Today, the People’s Vanguard asked questions about Stephen Souza’s relationship with the consulting group, Moore Iacofano Goltsman, Inc., which currently has a $75,000.00 contract with the city of Davis to poll & survey the citizens of Davis.

  211. All councilmembers, including Councilmember Stephen Souza need to be challenged and questioned about their financial dealings with those that do business with or attempt to do business with the city of Davis.

    Yesterday, the People’s Vanguard discussed the financial relationship between Don Saylor and West Yost and Associates to provide engineering services in support of the proposed water and sewage treatment projects which if approved will be over $300 million dollars in expenditures costing the ratepayers huge increases in their assessment fees.

    Today, the People’s Vanguard asked questions about Stephen Souza’s relationship with the consulting group, Moore Iacofano Goltsman, Inc., which currently has a $75,000.00 contract with the city of Davis to poll & survey the citizens of Davis.

  212. All councilmembers, including Councilmember Stephen Souza need to be challenged and questioned about their financial dealings with those that do business with or attempt to do business with the city of Davis.

    Yesterday, the People’s Vanguard discussed the financial relationship between Don Saylor and West Yost and Associates to provide engineering services in support of the proposed water and sewage treatment projects which if approved will be over $300 million dollars in expenditures costing the ratepayers huge increases in their assessment fees.

    Today, the People’s Vanguard asked questions about Stephen Souza’s relationship with the consulting group, Moore Iacofano Goltsman, Inc., which currently has a $75,000.00 contract with the city of Davis to poll & survey the citizens of Davis.

  213. “Questions about the financial relationships between government employees and elected officials with the very vendors doing business with the government agency they work for or oversee are fundamental to good government and transparent government.”

    I agree. However, if Doug had asked the person he accused of doing business with the polling company what was going on, he would have learned that there was no business relationship and that this is a non-story. Instead, Doug implied that Souza did something very wrong. Saying that without the facts is slimy.

  214. “Questions about the financial relationships between government employees and elected officials with the very vendors doing business with the government agency they work for or oversee are fundamental to good government and transparent government.”

    I agree. However, if Doug had asked the person he accused of doing business with the polling company what was going on, he would have learned that there was no business relationship and that this is a non-story. Instead, Doug implied that Souza did something very wrong. Saying that without the facts is slimy.

  215. “Questions about the financial relationships between government employees and elected officials with the very vendors doing business with the government agency they work for or oversee are fundamental to good government and transparent government.”

    I agree. However, if Doug had asked the person he accused of doing business with the polling company what was going on, he would have learned that there was no business relationship and that this is a non-story. Instead, Doug implied that Souza did something very wrong. Saying that without the facts is slimy.

  216. “Questions about the financial relationships between government employees and elected officials with the very vendors doing business with the government agency they work for or oversee are fundamental to good government and transparent government.”

    I agree. However, if Doug had asked the person he accused of doing business with the polling company what was going on, he would have learned that there was no business relationship and that this is a non-story. Instead, Doug implied that Souza did something very wrong. Saying that without the facts is slimy.

  217. “he would have learned that there was no business relationship and that this is a non-story.”

    That’s interesting because it is not what I have learned.

    Souza is claiming to have no business relationship but his explanation is actually not convicing. He is using his business lines to poll people on the school district because he was curious? Oh please. You bought that line? Because I sure didn’t.

    I’m glad this issue was raised, I’m glad for the manner in which it was raised because the findings and disclosure by Souza were VERY revealing.

    I don’t accept his explanation at face value. At best he’s engaging in obfuscation and political double-speak. At worst he might be dishonest here.

  218. “he would have learned that there was no business relationship and that this is a non-story.”

    That’s interesting because it is not what I have learned.

    Souza is claiming to have no business relationship but his explanation is actually not convicing. He is using his business lines to poll people on the school district because he was curious? Oh please. You bought that line? Because I sure didn’t.

    I’m glad this issue was raised, I’m glad for the manner in which it was raised because the findings and disclosure by Souza were VERY revealing.

    I don’t accept his explanation at face value. At best he’s engaging in obfuscation and political double-speak. At worst he might be dishonest here.

  219. “he would have learned that there was no business relationship and that this is a non-story.”

    That’s interesting because it is not what I have learned.

    Souza is claiming to have no business relationship but his explanation is actually not convicing. He is using his business lines to poll people on the school district because he was curious? Oh please. You bought that line? Because I sure didn’t.

    I’m glad this issue was raised, I’m glad for the manner in which it was raised because the findings and disclosure by Souza were VERY revealing.

    I don’t accept his explanation at face value. At best he’s engaging in obfuscation and political double-speak. At worst he might be dishonest here.

  220. “he would have learned that there was no business relationship and that this is a non-story.”

    That’s interesting because it is not what I have learned.

    Souza is claiming to have no business relationship but his explanation is actually not convicing. He is using his business lines to poll people on the school district because he was curious? Oh please. You bought that line? Because I sure didn’t.

    I’m glad this issue was raised, I’m glad for the manner in which it was raised because the findings and disclosure by Souza were VERY revealing.

    I don’t accept his explanation at face value. At best he’s engaging in obfuscation and political double-speak. At worst he might be dishonest here.

  221. Nice to see the confirmation that our good CC members read the Blog!

    Now, I want to see some good in-depth stories about the financial connections between the border developers and the CC candidates! Everyone knows that Saylor and Souza want the Sacramento River Water project so the EIR’s of their friendly developers pencil out as to the supply of water. Public Works, at the instruction of the CC majority, has been gradually raising our rates in order to pay for the research needed for the big project. “Death by a thousand cuts.” If they had been honest, they would have put the entire project to a vote (2/3rds needed), but instead they are “stealthing” it in. If you progressives and concerned rate payers do anything, one single thing, to help yourselves and your little City in this next year or two, STOP the river water scheme. Maybe Souza is using the public bonds campaign to test his own campaign and public outreach machinery for re-election? (Frankly, I think that is his main participation in the polling.)

  222. Nice to see the confirmation that our good CC members read the Blog!

    Now, I want to see some good in-depth stories about the financial connections between the border developers and the CC candidates! Everyone knows that Saylor and Souza want the Sacramento River Water project so the EIR’s of their friendly developers pencil out as to the supply of water. Public Works, at the instruction of the CC majority, has been gradually raising our rates in order to pay for the research needed for the big project. “Death by a thousand cuts.” If they had been honest, they would have put the entire project to a vote (2/3rds needed), but instead they are “stealthing” it in. If you progressives and concerned rate payers do anything, one single thing, to help yourselves and your little City in this next year or two, STOP the river water scheme. Maybe Souza is using the public bonds campaign to test his own campaign and public outreach machinery for re-election? (Frankly, I think that is his main participation in the polling.)

  223. Nice to see the confirmation that our good CC members read the Blog!

    Now, I want to see some good in-depth stories about the financial connections between the border developers and the CC candidates! Everyone knows that Saylor and Souza want the Sacramento River Water project so the EIR’s of their friendly developers pencil out as to the supply of water. Public Works, at the instruction of the CC majority, has been gradually raising our rates in order to pay for the research needed for the big project. “Death by a thousand cuts.” If they had been honest, they would have put the entire project to a vote (2/3rds needed), but instead they are “stealthing” it in. If you progressives and concerned rate payers do anything, one single thing, to help yourselves and your little City in this next year or two, STOP the river water scheme. Maybe Souza is using the public bonds campaign to test his own campaign and public outreach machinery for re-election? (Frankly, I think that is his main participation in the polling.)

  224. Nice to see the confirmation that our good CC members read the Blog!

    Now, I want to see some good in-depth stories about the financial connections between the border developers and the CC candidates! Everyone knows that Saylor and Souza want the Sacramento River Water project so the EIR’s of their friendly developers pencil out as to the supply of water. Public Works, at the instruction of the CC majority, has been gradually raising our rates in order to pay for the research needed for the big project. “Death by a thousand cuts.” If they had been honest, they would have put the entire project to a vote (2/3rds needed), but instead they are “stealthing” it in. If you progressives and concerned rate payers do anything, one single thing, to help yourselves and your little City in this next year or two, STOP the river water scheme. Maybe Souza is using the public bonds campaign to test his own campaign and public outreach machinery for re-election? (Frankly, I think that is his main participation in the polling.)

  225. Souza said that he had the poll done to see how and if he could do more to help measure Q?

    PLEASE Steve! Do you really think we are going to fall for that excuse of yours?

    If you are so concerned then spend the money on Measure Q and not a poll to see how your selected candidates are doing.

    Get some ethics.

  226. Souza said that he had the poll done to see how and if he could do more to help measure Q?

    PLEASE Steve! Do you really think we are going to fall for that excuse of yours?

    If you are so concerned then spend the money on Measure Q and not a poll to see how your selected candidates are doing.

    Get some ethics.

  227. Souza said that he had the poll done to see how and if he could do more to help measure Q?

    PLEASE Steve! Do you really think we are going to fall for that excuse of yours?

    If you are so concerned then spend the money on Measure Q and not a poll to see how your selected candidates are doing.

    Get some ethics.

  228. Souza said that he had the poll done to see how and if he could do more to help measure Q?

    PLEASE Steve! Do you really think we are going to fall for that excuse of yours?

    If you are so concerned then spend the money on Measure Q and not a poll to see how your selected candidates are doing.

    Get some ethics.

  229. Stephen Souza said…

    I am a citizen who is interested in the outcome of Measure Q. It will have an effect on our community and I wanted to see if it was passing. I wanted to see if I needed to do more to help assure its passage.

    What were the results?

  230. Stephen Souza said…

    I am a citizen who is interested in the outcome of Measure Q. It will have an effect on our community and I wanted to see if it was passing. I wanted to see if I needed to do more to help assure its passage.

    What were the results?

  231. Stephen Souza said…

    I am a citizen who is interested in the outcome of Measure Q. It will have an effect on our community and I wanted to see if it was passing. I wanted to see if I needed to do more to help assure its passage.

    What were the results?

  232. Stephen Souza said…

    I am a citizen who is interested in the outcome of Measure Q. It will have an effect on our community and I wanted to see if it was passing. I wanted to see if I needed to do more to help assure its passage.

    What were the results?

  233. I would also like to know the results of the poll on the School Board candidates.

    And, if Souza has shared the results of that poll with one of the candidates’ campaign committees, the costs of the polling had damned well better show up as an in-kind contribution to that campaign.

    DPD — Great job raising questions. Even though the precise issue you raised may not have presented a conflict, it lead to discovery of other potentially questionable conduct.

  234. I would also like to know the results of the poll on the School Board candidates.

    And, if Souza has shared the results of that poll with one of the candidates’ campaign committees, the costs of the polling had damned well better show up as an in-kind contribution to that campaign.

    DPD — Great job raising questions. Even though the precise issue you raised may not have presented a conflict, it lead to discovery of other potentially questionable conduct.

  235. I would also like to know the results of the poll on the School Board candidates.

    And, if Souza has shared the results of that poll with one of the candidates’ campaign committees, the costs of the polling had damned well better show up as an in-kind contribution to that campaign.

    DPD — Great job raising questions. Even though the precise issue you raised may not have presented a conflict, it lead to discovery of other potentially questionable conduct.

  236. I would also like to know the results of the poll on the School Board candidates.

    And, if Souza has shared the results of that poll with one of the candidates’ campaign committees, the costs of the polling had damned well better show up as an in-kind contribution to that campaign.

    DPD — Great job raising questions. Even though the precise issue you raised may not have presented a conflict, it lead to discovery of other potentially questionable conduct.

  237. It appears that the pressure of generating an interesting blog, or maybe it is DPD’s parochial political leanings that are overtaking morals and ethics, but we now have two consecutive days in which DPD has published a very questionable blog. Yesterday he writes of financial and ethical concerns regarding Saylor’s acceptance of $200 in contributions from a company doing business with the city. In reality, there is no conflict if $200 is the sum of what was received (some have written that there is the appearance of a conflict…perhaps Saylor should care about appearances, but I don’t – I only want to know if he is truly conflicted because of contributions or other forms of enticement)…if there is more to the story, then maybe there is a story. But as written, this is nothing more than attempt to cause trouble for Saylor and any reelection that he might seek. Today’s story appears to be much the same…an accusation without foundation and without adequate research. This story may deserve to be written, but not with the information that was apparently available to DPD today. More research to gather a better factual base is completely appropriate. Once the facts are completely gathered, then the story can be written. Clearly, DPD and his editorial board have very low standards about what and when to publish.

    Maybe this is just the day and age in which we live, but it is not a positive development for society or Davis. There is good in what DPD does, but his credibility as a “reporter of facts” is seriously waning. I would hate to see this blog ultimately become the Fox News of davis, but that is clearly where it appears to be headed. I, and others, seeking balance and facts, will then be forced to treat this blog as we do Fox News — that is, to disregard it.

  238. It appears that the pressure of generating an interesting blog, or maybe it is DPD’s parochial political leanings that are overtaking morals and ethics, but we now have two consecutive days in which DPD has published a very questionable blog. Yesterday he writes of financial and ethical concerns regarding Saylor’s acceptance of $200 in contributions from a company doing business with the city. In reality, there is no conflict if $200 is the sum of what was received (some have written that there is the appearance of a conflict…perhaps Saylor should care about appearances, but I don’t – I only want to know if he is truly conflicted because of contributions or other forms of enticement)…if there is more to the story, then maybe there is a story. But as written, this is nothing more than attempt to cause trouble for Saylor and any reelection that he might seek. Today’s story appears to be much the same…an accusation without foundation and without adequate research. This story may deserve to be written, but not with the information that was apparently available to DPD today. More research to gather a better factual base is completely appropriate. Once the facts are completely gathered, then the story can be written. Clearly, DPD and his editorial board have very low standards about what and when to publish.

    Maybe this is just the day and age in which we live, but it is not a positive development for society or Davis. There is good in what DPD does, but his credibility as a “reporter of facts” is seriously waning. I would hate to see this blog ultimately become the Fox News of davis, but that is clearly where it appears to be headed. I, and others, seeking balance and facts, will then be forced to treat this blog as we do Fox News — that is, to disregard it.

  239. It appears that the pressure of generating an interesting blog, or maybe it is DPD’s parochial political leanings that are overtaking morals and ethics, but we now have two consecutive days in which DPD has published a very questionable blog. Yesterday he writes of financial and ethical concerns regarding Saylor’s acceptance of $200 in contributions from a company doing business with the city. In reality, there is no conflict if $200 is the sum of what was received (some have written that there is the appearance of a conflict…perhaps Saylor should care about appearances, but I don’t – I only want to know if he is truly conflicted because of contributions or other forms of enticement)…if there is more to the story, then maybe there is a story. But as written, this is nothing more than attempt to cause trouble for Saylor and any reelection that he might seek. Today’s story appears to be much the same…an accusation without foundation and without adequate research. This story may deserve to be written, but not with the information that was apparently available to DPD today. More research to gather a better factual base is completely appropriate. Once the facts are completely gathered, then the story can be written. Clearly, DPD and his editorial board have very low standards about what and when to publish.

    Maybe this is just the day and age in which we live, but it is not a positive development for society or Davis. There is good in what DPD does, but his credibility as a “reporter of facts” is seriously waning. I would hate to see this blog ultimately become the Fox News of davis, but that is clearly where it appears to be headed. I, and others, seeking balance and facts, will then be forced to treat this blog as we do Fox News — that is, to disregard it.

  240. It appears that the pressure of generating an interesting blog, or maybe it is DPD’s parochial political leanings that are overtaking morals and ethics, but we now have two consecutive days in which DPD has published a very questionable blog. Yesterday he writes of financial and ethical concerns regarding Saylor’s acceptance of $200 in contributions from a company doing business with the city. In reality, there is no conflict if $200 is the sum of what was received (some have written that there is the appearance of a conflict…perhaps Saylor should care about appearances, but I don’t – I only want to know if he is truly conflicted because of contributions or other forms of enticement)…if there is more to the story, then maybe there is a story. But as written, this is nothing more than attempt to cause trouble for Saylor and any reelection that he might seek. Today’s story appears to be much the same…an accusation without foundation and without adequate research. This story may deserve to be written, but not with the information that was apparently available to DPD today. More research to gather a better factual base is completely appropriate. Once the facts are completely gathered, then the story can be written. Clearly, DPD and his editorial board have very low standards about what and when to publish.

    Maybe this is just the day and age in which we live, but it is not a positive development for society or Davis. There is good in what DPD does, but his credibility as a “reporter of facts” is seriously waning. I would hate to see this blog ultimately become the Fox News of davis, but that is clearly where it appears to be headed. I, and others, seeking balance and facts, will then be forced to treat this blog as we do Fox News — that is, to disregard it.

  241. so who is polling who for what exactly anyway? I read all of this and I still don’t understand.

    Souza: polling for measure q and the candidates.

    Godbe: polling for what and why?

  242. so who is polling who for what exactly anyway? I read all of this and I still don’t understand.

    Souza: polling for measure q and the candidates.

    Godbe: polling for what and why?

  243. so who is polling who for what exactly anyway? I read all of this and I still don’t understand.

    Souza: polling for measure q and the candidates.

    Godbe: polling for what and why?

  244. so who is polling who for what exactly anyway? I read all of this and I still don’t understand.

    Souza: polling for measure q and the candidates.

    Godbe: polling for what and why?

  245. Diogenes at 10:19 PM – How blind sided your view of what is taking place in Davis.

    Thanks to the Vanguard we now know that a council member, Saylor, has taken money, $200 from a company (West Yost) that may be paid millions by the city for a project.

    This, IS UNETHICAL. It may not be illegal, but it is UNETHICAL.

    Second, we have another council member, Souza, who is using his resources for a school board election. This, with a company chosen by the city council (he is one vote of five)whom the city is paying $75,000.

    Please take off your blinders. We don’t need another G.W. Bush government in Davis, CA.

  246. Diogenes at 10:19 PM – How blind sided your view of what is taking place in Davis.

    Thanks to the Vanguard we now know that a council member, Saylor, has taken money, $200 from a company (West Yost) that may be paid millions by the city for a project.

    This, IS UNETHICAL. It may not be illegal, but it is UNETHICAL.

    Second, we have another council member, Souza, who is using his resources for a school board election. This, with a company chosen by the city council (he is one vote of five)whom the city is paying $75,000.

    Please take off your blinders. We don’t need another G.W. Bush government in Davis, CA.

  247. Diogenes at 10:19 PM – How blind sided your view of what is taking place in Davis.

    Thanks to the Vanguard we now know that a council member, Saylor, has taken money, $200 from a company (West Yost) that may be paid millions by the city for a project.

    This, IS UNETHICAL. It may not be illegal, but it is UNETHICAL.

    Second, we have another council member, Souza, who is using his resources for a school board election. This, with a company chosen by the city council (he is one vote of five)whom the city is paying $75,000.

    Please take off your blinders. We don’t need another G.W. Bush government in Davis, CA.

  248. Diogenes at 10:19 PM – How blind sided your view of what is taking place in Davis.

    Thanks to the Vanguard we now know that a council member, Saylor, has taken money, $200 from a company (West Yost) that may be paid millions by the city for a project.

    This, IS UNETHICAL. It may not be illegal, but it is UNETHICAL.

    Second, we have another council member, Souza, who is using his resources for a school board election. This, with a company chosen by the city council (he is one vote of five)whom the city is paying $75,000.

    Please take off your blinders. We don’t need another G.W. Bush government in Davis, CA.

  249. Reading this long string of posts, I see two camps, one camp basically is taking what Souza has said at face value and admonishing David Greenwald or whatever his name is for failing to ask these questions in private. The other camp is more skeptical of these claims.

    At first, I read the article, I was alarmed.

    Then I read Souza’s first post and I thought that David had jumped the gun.

    Now I read Souza’s later comments and some of the other information that has come to light and I back into the concerned camp.

    Let me be very blunt here to the supporters of Souza and the detractors of David—the third post by Souza on this thread does not ring authentic. No one on the city council would run a poll because they were curious and concerned about the issue. I find that completely disingenuous on the part of Souza. Completely to the point that now I wonder if there really isn’t more there that he isn’t hiding.

    I think Diogenes is wrong and also ironic here. Diogenes refers to the man walking around the day with his latern looking for an honest man. And he never found one. People have excused the campaign contributions that Saylor has taken suggesting it is only $200. What amount would be considered dishonest? What amount taken from a current and potentially future vendor would cause alarm?

    Meanwhile, Stephen Souza has been less than forthright with us as to his reasons for commissioning a poll from his business. I’m not ready to acquit him.

    As I look at this again for a second time, I find what David decided to do very interesting. First, he asked a bunch of questions, he fired off a letter of inquiry to the city attorney, and then he posted it here for the public to see. In many ways, that is a model of transparency.

    Has his inquest revealed anything meaningful, that we do not know. But for now I have many questions and unfortunately have been provided few answers from Steve Souza. That leads me to suspect that those lack of answers are what prompted the approach taken here.

  250. Reading this long string of posts, I see two camps, one camp basically is taking what Souza has said at face value and admonishing David Greenwald or whatever his name is for failing to ask these questions in private. The other camp is more skeptical of these claims.

    At first, I read the article, I was alarmed.

    Then I read Souza’s first post and I thought that David had jumped the gun.

    Now I read Souza’s later comments and some of the other information that has come to light and I back into the concerned camp.

    Let me be very blunt here to the supporters of Souza and the detractors of David—the third post by Souza on this thread does not ring authentic. No one on the city council would run a poll because they were curious and concerned about the issue. I find that completely disingenuous on the part of Souza. Completely to the point that now I wonder if there really isn’t more there that he isn’t hiding.

    I think Diogenes is wrong and also ironic here. Diogenes refers to the man walking around the day with his latern looking for an honest man. And he never found one. People have excused the campaign contributions that Saylor has taken suggesting it is only $200. What amount would be considered dishonest? What amount taken from a current and potentially future vendor would cause alarm?

    Meanwhile, Stephen Souza has been less than forthright with us as to his reasons for commissioning a poll from his business. I’m not ready to acquit him.

    As I look at this again for a second time, I find what David decided to do very interesting. First, he asked a bunch of questions, he fired off a letter of inquiry to the city attorney, and then he posted it here for the public to see. In many ways, that is a model of transparency.

    Has his inquest revealed anything meaningful, that we do not know. But for now I have many questions and unfortunately have been provided few answers from Steve Souza. That leads me to suspect that those lack of answers are what prompted the approach taken here.

  251. Reading this long string of posts, I see two camps, one camp basically is taking what Souza has said at face value and admonishing David Greenwald or whatever his name is for failing to ask these questions in private. The other camp is more skeptical of these claims.

    At first, I read the article, I was alarmed.

    Then I read Souza’s first post and I thought that David had jumped the gun.

    Now I read Souza’s later comments and some of the other information that has come to light and I back into the concerned camp.

    Let me be very blunt here to the supporters of Souza and the detractors of David—the third post by Souza on this thread does not ring authentic. No one on the city council would run a poll because they were curious and concerned about the issue. I find that completely disingenuous on the part of Souza. Completely to the point that now I wonder if there really isn’t more there that he isn’t hiding.

    I think Diogenes is wrong and also ironic here. Diogenes refers to the man walking around the day with his latern looking for an honest man. And he never found one. People have excused the campaign contributions that Saylor has taken suggesting it is only $200. What amount would be considered dishonest? What amount taken from a current and potentially future vendor would cause alarm?

    Meanwhile, Stephen Souza has been less than forthright with us as to his reasons for commissioning a poll from his business. I’m not ready to acquit him.

    As I look at this again for a second time, I find what David decided to do very interesting. First, he asked a bunch of questions, he fired off a letter of inquiry to the city attorney, and then he posted it here for the public to see. In many ways, that is a model of transparency.

    Has his inquest revealed anything meaningful, that we do not know. But for now I have many questions and unfortunately have been provided few answers from Steve Souza. That leads me to suspect that those lack of answers are what prompted the approach taken here.

  252. Reading this long string of posts, I see two camps, one camp basically is taking what Souza has said at face value and admonishing David Greenwald or whatever his name is for failing to ask these questions in private. The other camp is more skeptical of these claims.

    At first, I read the article, I was alarmed.

    Then I read Souza’s first post and I thought that David had jumped the gun.

    Now I read Souza’s later comments and some of the other information that has come to light and I back into the concerned camp.

    Let me be very blunt here to the supporters of Souza and the detractors of David—the third post by Souza on this thread does not ring authentic. No one on the city council would run a poll because they were curious and concerned about the issue. I find that completely disingenuous on the part of Souza. Completely to the point that now I wonder if there really isn’t more there that he isn’t hiding.

    I think Diogenes is wrong and also ironic here. Diogenes refers to the man walking around the day with his latern looking for an honest man. And he never found one. People have excused the campaign contributions that Saylor has taken suggesting it is only $200. What amount would be considered dishonest? What amount taken from a current and potentially future vendor would cause alarm?

    Meanwhile, Stephen Souza has been less than forthright with us as to his reasons for commissioning a poll from his business. I’m not ready to acquit him.

    As I look at this again for a second time, I find what David decided to do very interesting. First, he asked a bunch of questions, he fired off a letter of inquiry to the city attorney, and then he posted it here for the public to see. In many ways, that is a model of transparency.

    Has his inquest revealed anything meaningful, that we do not know. But for now I have many questions and unfortunately have been provided few answers from Steve Souza. That leads me to suspect that those lack of answers are what prompted the approach taken here.

  253. “Maybe this is just the day and age in which we live, but it is not a positive development for society or Davis. There is good in what DPD does, but his credibility as a “reporter of facts” is seriously waning. I would hate to see this blog ultimately become the Fox News of davis, but that is clearly where it appears to be headed. I, and others, seeking balance and facts, will then be forced to treat this blog as we do Fox News — that is, to disregard it.”

    I couldn’t agree more. I really used to like this blog and saw it as a great source for objective, off-beat news. After the last couple days, I’m seeing it post stories on the level of conspiracy theories about two candidates running against the author’s wife in upcoming elections.

    I almost forgot about the lack of disclosure about DPD’s relationship with Provenza.

    Come on. DPD, I really thought you were better than this.

    And seriously, you guys who keep saying that Saylor was bought off for $200 in campaign contributions… get a clue. Really. Work on a political campaign sometime. Talk with a politician. $200 means positively nothing. Not to mention we all know Saylor supports projects like this anyhow.

  254. “Maybe this is just the day and age in which we live, but it is not a positive development for society or Davis. There is good in what DPD does, but his credibility as a “reporter of facts” is seriously waning. I would hate to see this blog ultimately become the Fox News of davis, but that is clearly where it appears to be headed. I, and others, seeking balance and facts, will then be forced to treat this blog as we do Fox News — that is, to disregard it.”

    I couldn’t agree more. I really used to like this blog and saw it as a great source for objective, off-beat news. After the last couple days, I’m seeing it post stories on the level of conspiracy theories about two candidates running against the author’s wife in upcoming elections.

    I almost forgot about the lack of disclosure about DPD’s relationship with Provenza.

    Come on. DPD, I really thought you were better than this.

    And seriously, you guys who keep saying that Saylor was bought off for $200 in campaign contributions… get a clue. Really. Work on a political campaign sometime. Talk with a politician. $200 means positively nothing. Not to mention we all know Saylor supports projects like this anyhow.

  255. “Maybe this is just the day and age in which we live, but it is not a positive development for society or Davis. There is good in what DPD does, but his credibility as a “reporter of facts” is seriously waning. I would hate to see this blog ultimately become the Fox News of davis, but that is clearly where it appears to be headed. I, and others, seeking balance and facts, will then be forced to treat this blog as we do Fox News — that is, to disregard it.”

    I couldn’t agree more. I really used to like this blog and saw it as a great source for objective, off-beat news. After the last couple days, I’m seeing it post stories on the level of conspiracy theories about two candidates running against the author’s wife in upcoming elections.

    I almost forgot about the lack of disclosure about DPD’s relationship with Provenza.

    Come on. DPD, I really thought you were better than this.

    And seriously, you guys who keep saying that Saylor was bought off for $200 in campaign contributions… get a clue. Really. Work on a political campaign sometime. Talk with a politician. $200 means positively nothing. Not to mention we all know Saylor supports projects like this anyhow.

  256. “Maybe this is just the day and age in which we live, but it is not a positive development for society or Davis. There is good in what DPD does, but his credibility as a “reporter of facts” is seriously waning. I would hate to see this blog ultimately become the Fox News of davis, but that is clearly where it appears to be headed. I, and others, seeking balance and facts, will then be forced to treat this blog as we do Fox News — that is, to disregard it.”

    I couldn’t agree more. I really used to like this blog and saw it as a great source for objective, off-beat news. After the last couple days, I’m seeing it post stories on the level of conspiracy theories about two candidates running against the author’s wife in upcoming elections.

    I almost forgot about the lack of disclosure about DPD’s relationship with Provenza.

    Come on. DPD, I really thought you were better than this.

    And seriously, you guys who keep saying that Saylor was bought off for $200 in campaign contributions… get a clue. Really. Work on a political campaign sometime. Talk with a politician. $200 means positively nothing. Not to mention we all know Saylor supports projects like this anyhow.

  257. No body said that Saylor was “bought off” by two dollars.

    Saylor *may* support projects like this anyway, but you do not think it is unseemly that he is receiving contributions from a company that is involved in major business with the city?

    Curious what is DPDs relationship with Provenza?

  258. No body said that Saylor was “bought off” by two dollars.

    Saylor *may* support projects like this anyway, but you do not think it is unseemly that he is receiving contributions from a company that is involved in major business with the city?

    Curious what is DPDs relationship with Provenza?

  259. No body said that Saylor was “bought off” by two dollars.

    Saylor *may* support projects like this anyway, but you do not think it is unseemly that he is receiving contributions from a company that is involved in major business with the city?

    Curious what is DPDs relationship with Provenza?

  260. No body said that Saylor was “bought off” by two dollars.

    Saylor *may* support projects like this anyway, but you do not think it is unseemly that he is receiving contributions from a company that is involved in major business with the city?

    Curious what is DPDs relationship with Provenza?

  261. LOL… read through the campaign contribution reports. Major developers often give significantly larger sums to candidates – even thousands of dollars. The easiest way to talk to a politician is to give them money, quite frankly.

    That in and of itself doesn’t mean they’re corrupt. Many of this site’s favored politicians receive contributions from various sources too. For $200, Don isn’t going to change his vote, nor would Lamar, Ruth, Steven, or Sue.

    DPD is friends with Provenza and his (former) campaign manager, Bill Ritter.

    Does that mean anything? About as much as Saylor’s $200 or Souza’s telephone poll.

  262. LOL… read through the campaign contribution reports. Major developers often give significantly larger sums to candidates – even thousands of dollars. The easiest way to talk to a politician is to give them money, quite frankly.

    That in and of itself doesn’t mean they’re corrupt. Many of this site’s favored politicians receive contributions from various sources too. For $200, Don isn’t going to change his vote, nor would Lamar, Ruth, Steven, or Sue.

    DPD is friends with Provenza and his (former) campaign manager, Bill Ritter.

    Does that mean anything? About as much as Saylor’s $200 or Souza’s telephone poll.

  263. LOL… read through the campaign contribution reports. Major developers often give significantly larger sums to candidates – even thousands of dollars. The easiest way to talk to a politician is to give them money, quite frankly.

    That in and of itself doesn’t mean they’re corrupt. Many of this site’s favored politicians receive contributions from various sources too. For $200, Don isn’t going to change his vote, nor would Lamar, Ruth, Steven, or Sue.

    DPD is friends with Provenza and his (former) campaign manager, Bill Ritter.

    Does that mean anything? About as much as Saylor’s $200 or Souza’s telephone poll.

  264. LOL… read through the campaign contribution reports. Major developers often give significantly larger sums to candidates – even thousands of dollars. The easiest way to talk to a politician is to give them money, quite frankly.

    That in and of itself doesn’t mean they’re corrupt. Many of this site’s favored politicians receive contributions from various sources too. For $200, Don isn’t going to change his vote, nor would Lamar, Ruth, Steven, or Sue.

    DPD is friends with Provenza and his (former) campaign manager, Bill Ritter.

    Does that mean anything? About as much as Saylor’s $200 or Souza’s telephone poll.

  265. I do not think that Saylor is in any different position than any other politician with respect to accepting a contribution from a citizen. Most people who contribute to a campaign do so b/c the expect the candidate to support certain positions and issues in a way that is favored by the contributor. If a candidate were to switch positions or change a view, that is often met with outrage and accusations of breach of trust (we only need to look back a few weeks ago to see how Mariko was threatened with a recall) to see that voters and contributors expect their politicians to behave in accordance with previously held positions. And assuming that $200 is all the money that West Yost employees contributed to his campaign, I don’t think this provides any ethical or financial conflict that would prevent Saylor from voting based on his beliefs of what is best for Davis, not as a quid pro quo for having accepted this money.

    Further, I’m not suggesting that there is no story worth publishing with respect to Saylor or Souza. I’m suggesting that the implications of the stories, as published, are very poorly supported, and almost no conclusion can be drawn from them. You can of course, drum up a lot of partisan political hullaballo and angst with these types of stories, and therefore, I’m left to conclude that there are other reasons that these stories were published now, instead of at a later date when more facts had been ascertained.

  266. I do not think that Saylor is in any different position than any other politician with respect to accepting a contribution from a citizen. Most people who contribute to a campaign do so b/c the expect the candidate to support certain positions and issues in a way that is favored by the contributor. If a candidate were to switch positions or change a view, that is often met with outrage and accusations of breach of trust (we only need to look back a few weeks ago to see how Mariko was threatened with a recall) to see that voters and contributors expect their politicians to behave in accordance with previously held positions. And assuming that $200 is all the money that West Yost employees contributed to his campaign, I don’t think this provides any ethical or financial conflict that would prevent Saylor from voting based on his beliefs of what is best for Davis, not as a quid pro quo for having accepted this money.

    Further, I’m not suggesting that there is no story worth publishing with respect to Saylor or Souza. I’m suggesting that the implications of the stories, as published, are very poorly supported, and almost no conclusion can be drawn from them. You can of course, drum up a lot of partisan political hullaballo and angst with these types of stories, and therefore, I’m left to conclude that there are other reasons that these stories were published now, instead of at a later date when more facts had been ascertained.

  267. I do not think that Saylor is in any different position than any other politician with respect to accepting a contribution from a citizen. Most people who contribute to a campaign do so b/c the expect the candidate to support certain positions and issues in a way that is favored by the contributor. If a candidate were to switch positions or change a view, that is often met with outrage and accusations of breach of trust (we only need to look back a few weeks ago to see how Mariko was threatened with a recall) to see that voters and contributors expect their politicians to behave in accordance with previously held positions. And assuming that $200 is all the money that West Yost employees contributed to his campaign, I don’t think this provides any ethical or financial conflict that would prevent Saylor from voting based on his beliefs of what is best for Davis, not as a quid pro quo for having accepted this money.

    Further, I’m not suggesting that there is no story worth publishing with respect to Saylor or Souza. I’m suggesting that the implications of the stories, as published, are very poorly supported, and almost no conclusion can be drawn from them. You can of course, drum up a lot of partisan political hullaballo and angst with these types of stories, and therefore, I’m left to conclude that there are other reasons that these stories were published now, instead of at a later date when more facts had been ascertained.

  268. I do not think that Saylor is in any different position than any other politician with respect to accepting a contribution from a citizen. Most people who contribute to a campaign do so b/c the expect the candidate to support certain positions and issues in a way that is favored by the contributor. If a candidate were to switch positions or change a view, that is often met with outrage and accusations of breach of trust (we only need to look back a few weeks ago to see how Mariko was threatened with a recall) to see that voters and contributors expect their politicians to behave in accordance with previously held positions. And assuming that $200 is all the money that West Yost employees contributed to his campaign, I don’t think this provides any ethical or financial conflict that would prevent Saylor from voting based on his beliefs of what is best for Davis, not as a quid pro quo for having accepted this money.

    Further, I’m not suggesting that there is no story worth publishing with respect to Saylor or Souza. I’m suggesting that the implications of the stories, as published, are very poorly supported, and almost no conclusion can be drawn from them. You can of course, drum up a lot of partisan political hullaballo and angst with these types of stories, and therefore, I’m left to conclude that there are other reasons that these stories were published now, instead of at a later date when more facts had been ascertained.

  269. Diogenes @ 10/16/07 10:19 PM said… “There is good in what DPD does, but his credibility as a “reporter of facts” is seriously waning. I would hate to see this blog ultimately become the Fox News of davis, but that is clearly where it appears to be headed. I, and others, seeking balance and facts, will then be forced to treat this blog as we do Fox News — that is, to disregard it.?

    From my observation, the Davis Enterprise “reporting” and editorializing staff have the market cornered on being the Fox News or better put the Faux News of Davis. That is why the People’s Vanguard of Davis was born.

    The Vanguard story on MIG & Stephen Souza is a story with questions about relationships. For example, there are a series of questions that DPD, the Vanguard and community commentators have broached of which no one including Mr. Souza has been able to answer in a truthful and verifiable way. This story is just now beginning to be told.

    As Ronald Reagan said: “Trust, but verify.” Those that wish to trust Mr. Souza, should verify and prove that his efforts are legitimate and conform to what he stated his actions and goals to be.

    Souza needs to answer the following:

    Did the Yes on Measure Q campaign authorize Mr. Souza to act on its behalf by commissioning a poll?

    Did any school board members authorize Mr. Souza to conduct a poll?

    Did any of the school board candidates authorize Mr. Souza to act on their behalf by commissioning a poll?

    And if so, what were the business relationships between Mr. Souza and these people & entities?

    What were the results of the poll?

    Will any of these campaigns be reporting Mr. Souza’s polling efforts as paid services or in-kind services on their behalf?

    The truth will emerge and we shall let the chips fall where they may.

    Good work DPD & the Vanguard.

  270. Diogenes @ 10/16/07 10:19 PM said… “There is good in what DPD does, but his credibility as a “reporter of facts” is seriously waning. I would hate to see this blog ultimately become the Fox News of davis, but that is clearly where it appears to be headed. I, and others, seeking balance and facts, will then be forced to treat this blog as we do Fox News — that is, to disregard it.?

    From my observation, the Davis Enterprise “reporting” and editorializing staff have the market cornered on being the Fox News or better put the Faux News of Davis. That is why the People’s Vanguard of Davis was born.

    The Vanguard story on MIG & Stephen Souza is a story with questions about relationships. For example, there are a series of questions that DPD, the Vanguard and community commentators have broached of which no one including Mr. Souza has been able to answer in a truthful and verifiable way. This story is just now beginning to be told.

    As Ronald Reagan said: “Trust, but verify.” Those that wish to trust Mr. Souza, should verify and prove that his efforts are legitimate and conform to what he stated his actions and goals to be.

    Souza needs to answer the following:

    Did the Yes on Measure Q campaign authorize Mr. Souza to act on its behalf by commissioning a poll?

    Did any school board members authorize Mr. Souza to conduct a poll?

    Did any of the school board candidates authorize Mr. Souza to act on their behalf by commissioning a poll?

    And if so, what were the business relationships between Mr. Souza and these people & entities?

    What were the results of the poll?

    Will any of these campaigns be reporting Mr. Souza’s polling efforts as paid services or in-kind services on their behalf?

    The truth will emerge and we shall let the chips fall where they may.

    Good work DPD & the Vanguard.

  271. Diogenes @ 10/16/07 10:19 PM said… “There is good in what DPD does, but his credibility as a “reporter of facts” is seriously waning. I would hate to see this blog ultimately become the Fox News of davis, but that is clearly where it appears to be headed. I, and others, seeking balance and facts, will then be forced to treat this blog as we do Fox News — that is, to disregard it.?

    From my observation, the Davis Enterprise “reporting” and editorializing staff have the market cornered on being the Fox News or better put the Faux News of Davis. That is why the People’s Vanguard of Davis was born.

    The Vanguard story on MIG & Stephen Souza is a story with questions about relationships. For example, there are a series of questions that DPD, the Vanguard and community commentators have broached of which no one including Mr. Souza has been able to answer in a truthful and verifiable way. This story is just now beginning to be told.

    As Ronald Reagan said: “Trust, but verify.” Those that wish to trust Mr. Souza, should verify and prove that his efforts are legitimate and conform to what he stated his actions and goals to be.

    Souza needs to answer the following:

    Did the Yes on Measure Q campaign authorize Mr. Souza to act on its behalf by commissioning a poll?

    Did any school board members authorize Mr. Souza to conduct a poll?

    Did any of the school board candidates authorize Mr. Souza to act on their behalf by commissioning a poll?

    And if so, what were the business relationships between Mr. Souza and these people & entities?

    What were the results of the poll?

    Will any of these campaigns be reporting Mr. Souza’s polling efforts as paid services or in-kind services on their behalf?

    The truth will emerge and we shall let the chips fall where they may.

    Good work DPD & the Vanguard.

  272. Diogenes @ 10/16/07 10:19 PM said… “There is good in what DPD does, but his credibility as a “reporter of facts” is seriously waning. I would hate to see this blog ultimately become the Fox News of davis, but that is clearly where it appears to be headed. I, and others, seeking balance and facts, will then be forced to treat this blog as we do Fox News — that is, to disregard it.?

    From my observation, the Davis Enterprise “reporting” and editorializing staff have the market cornered on being the Fox News or better put the Faux News of Davis. That is why the People’s Vanguard of Davis was born.

    The Vanguard story on MIG & Stephen Souza is a story with questions about relationships. For example, there are a series of questions that DPD, the Vanguard and community commentators have broached of which no one including Mr. Souza has been able to answer in a truthful and verifiable way. This story is just now beginning to be told.

    As Ronald Reagan said: “Trust, but verify.” Those that wish to trust Mr. Souza, should verify and prove that his efforts are legitimate and conform to what he stated his actions and goals to be.

    Souza needs to answer the following:

    Did the Yes on Measure Q campaign authorize Mr. Souza to act on its behalf by commissioning a poll?

    Did any school board members authorize Mr. Souza to conduct a poll?

    Did any of the school board candidates authorize Mr. Souza to act on their behalf by commissioning a poll?

    And if so, what were the business relationships between Mr. Souza and these people & entities?

    What were the results of the poll?

    Will any of these campaigns be reporting Mr. Souza’s polling efforts as paid services or in-kind services on their behalf?

    The truth will emerge and we shall let the chips fall where they may.

    Good work DPD & the Vanguard.

  273. Just answering this as an observer:

    Did the Yes on Measure Q campaign authorize Mr. Souza to act on its behalf by commissioning a poll?

    No, nor do they need to. The poll was done by Souza for Souza. He has every right as a politician or as a citizen to do research and support issues he finds are important.

    Did any school board members authorize Mr. Souza to conduct a poll?

    No, nor do they need to. The poll was done by Souza for Souza. He has every right as a politician or as a citizen to do research and support issues he finds are important.

    Did any of the school board candidates authorize Mr. Souza to act on their behalf by commissioning a poll?

    No, nor do they need to. The poll was done by Souza for Souza. He has every right as a politician or as a citizen to do research and support issues he finds are important.

    And if so, what were the business relationships between Mr. Souza and these people & entities?

    Souza has said that he did it for himself. That sounds like a no to me.

    What were the results of the poll?

    As the poll was not publicly funded, there is ABSOLUTELY no reason he should have to give the results. If you want the numbers, do your own poll.

    Will any of these campaigns be reporting Mr. Souza’s polling efforts as paid services or in-kind services on their behalf?

    Souza has said that he did it for himself. That sounds like a no to me.

  274. Just answering this as an observer:

    Did the Yes on Measure Q campaign authorize Mr. Souza to act on its behalf by commissioning a poll?

    No, nor do they need to. The poll was done by Souza for Souza. He has every right as a politician or as a citizen to do research and support issues he finds are important.

    Did any school board members authorize Mr. Souza to conduct a poll?

    No, nor do they need to. The poll was done by Souza for Souza. He has every right as a politician or as a citizen to do research and support issues he finds are important.

    Did any of the school board candidates authorize Mr. Souza to act on their behalf by commissioning a poll?

    No, nor do they need to. The poll was done by Souza for Souza. He has every right as a politician or as a citizen to do research and support issues he finds are important.

    And if so, what were the business relationships between Mr. Souza and these people & entities?

    Souza has said that he did it for himself. That sounds like a no to me.

    What were the results of the poll?

    As the poll was not publicly funded, there is ABSOLUTELY no reason he should have to give the results. If you want the numbers, do your own poll.

    Will any of these campaigns be reporting Mr. Souza’s polling efforts as paid services or in-kind services on their behalf?

    Souza has said that he did it for himself. That sounds like a no to me.

  275. Just answering this as an observer:

    Did the Yes on Measure Q campaign authorize Mr. Souza to act on its behalf by commissioning a poll?

    No, nor do they need to. The poll was done by Souza for Souza. He has every right as a politician or as a citizen to do research and support issues he finds are important.

    Did any school board members authorize Mr. Souza to conduct a poll?

    No, nor do they need to. The poll was done by Souza for Souza. He has every right as a politician or as a citizen to do research and support issues he finds are important.

    Did any of the school board candidates authorize Mr. Souza to act on their behalf by commissioning a poll?

    No, nor do they need to. The poll was done by Souza for Souza. He has every right as a politician or as a citizen to do research and support issues he finds are important.

    And if so, what were the business relationships between Mr. Souza and these people & entities?

    Souza has said that he did it for himself. That sounds like a no to me.

    What were the results of the poll?

    As the poll was not publicly funded, there is ABSOLUTELY no reason he should have to give the results. If you want the numbers, do your own poll.

    Will any of these campaigns be reporting Mr. Souza’s polling efforts as paid services or in-kind services on their behalf?

    Souza has said that he did it for himself. That sounds like a no to me.

  276. Just answering this as an observer:

    Did the Yes on Measure Q campaign authorize Mr. Souza to act on its behalf by commissioning a poll?

    No, nor do they need to. The poll was done by Souza for Souza. He has every right as a politician or as a citizen to do research and support issues he finds are important.

    Did any school board members authorize Mr. Souza to conduct a poll?

    No, nor do they need to. The poll was done by Souza for Souza. He has every right as a politician or as a citizen to do research and support issues he finds are important.

    Did any of the school board candidates authorize Mr. Souza to act on their behalf by commissioning a poll?

    No, nor do they need to. The poll was done by Souza for Souza. He has every right as a politician or as a citizen to do research and support issues he finds are important.

    And if so, what were the business relationships between Mr. Souza and these people & entities?

    Souza has said that he did it for himself. That sounds like a no to me.

    What were the results of the poll?

    As the poll was not publicly funded, there is ABSOLUTELY no reason he should have to give the results. If you want the numbers, do your own poll.

    Will any of these campaigns be reporting Mr. Souza’s polling efforts as paid services or in-kind services on their behalf?

    Souza has said that he did it for himself. That sounds like a no to me.

  277. The curious question is, though, how does any politician afford to pay for their own personal polling services? It doesn’t come cheap, and the vast majority of people couldn’t afford it.

    It also has a tendency to provoke questions, as here, such as the obvious, what did you find out? All in all, it seems to generate attention in a way that, for any politician outside of their own electoral campaign, is not very appealing, as the polling activity becomes the story, not the politician’s record.

    Perhaps, the real revelation associated with this story is that a Davis city councilmember is now financing a political operation that would normally be associated with an state assembly, state senate, congressional seat or statewide constitutional office, where, I imagine, this practice is commonplace.

    Or, maybe, I’ve been out of the loop, and this has been going on for a long time.

    –Richard Estes

  278. The curious question is, though, how does any politician afford to pay for their own personal polling services? It doesn’t come cheap, and the vast majority of people couldn’t afford it.

    It also has a tendency to provoke questions, as here, such as the obvious, what did you find out? All in all, it seems to generate attention in a way that, for any politician outside of their own electoral campaign, is not very appealing, as the polling activity becomes the story, not the politician’s record.

    Perhaps, the real revelation associated with this story is that a Davis city councilmember is now financing a political operation that would normally be associated with an state assembly, state senate, congressional seat or statewide constitutional office, where, I imagine, this practice is commonplace.

    Or, maybe, I’ve been out of the loop, and this has been going on for a long time.

    –Richard Estes

  279. The curious question is, though, how does any politician afford to pay for their own personal polling services? It doesn’t come cheap, and the vast majority of people couldn’t afford it.

    It also has a tendency to provoke questions, as here, such as the obvious, what did you find out? All in all, it seems to generate attention in a way that, for any politician outside of their own electoral campaign, is not very appealing, as the polling activity becomes the story, not the politician’s record.

    Perhaps, the real revelation associated with this story is that a Davis city councilmember is now financing a political operation that would normally be associated with an state assembly, state senate, congressional seat or statewide constitutional office, where, I imagine, this practice is commonplace.

    Or, maybe, I’ve been out of the loop, and this has been going on for a long time.

    –Richard Estes

  280. The curious question is, though, how does any politician afford to pay for their own personal polling services? It doesn’t come cheap, and the vast majority of people couldn’t afford it.

    It also has a tendency to provoke questions, as here, such as the obvious, what did you find out? All in all, it seems to generate attention in a way that, for any politician outside of their own electoral campaign, is not very appealing, as the polling activity becomes the story, not the politician’s record.

    Perhaps, the real revelation associated with this story is that a Davis city councilmember is now financing a political operation that would normally be associated with an state assembly, state senate, congressional seat or statewide constitutional office, where, I imagine, this practice is commonplace.

    Or, maybe, I’ve been out of the loop, and this has been going on for a long time.

    –Richard Estes

  281. “No, nor do they need to. The poll was done by Souza for Souza. He has every right as a politician or as a citizen to do research and support issues he finds are important.”

    This is where many of us start questioning his motivations.

  282. “No, nor do they need to. The poll was done by Souza for Souza. He has every right as a politician or as a citizen to do research and support issues he finds are important.”

    This is where many of us start questioning his motivations.

  283. “No, nor do they need to. The poll was done by Souza for Souza. He has every right as a politician or as a citizen to do research and support issues he finds are important.”

    This is where many of us start questioning his motivations.

  284. “No, nor do they need to. The poll was done by Souza for Souza. He has every right as a politician or as a citizen to do research and support issues he finds are important.”

    This is where many of us start questioning his motivations.

  285. Responding to:

    Anonymous @ 10/17/07 10:09 AM who said…“Just answering this as an observer:”

    Did the Yes on Measure Q campaign authorize Mr. Souza to act on its behalf by commissioning a poll?

    “No, nor do they need to. The poll was done by Souza for Souza. He has every right as a politician or as a citizen to do research and support issues he finds are important.”

    So Souza will not share his findings with the people, candidates or campaigns he supports?

    Did any school board members authorize Mr. Souza to conduct a poll?

    “No, nor do they need to. The poll was done by Souza for Souza. He has every right as a politician or as a citizen to do research and support issues he finds are important.”

    So Souza will not share his findings with the people, candidates or campaigns he supports?

    Did any of the school board candidates authorize Mr. Souza to act on their behalf by commissioning a poll?

    “No, nor do they need to. The poll was done by Souza for Souza. He has every right as a politician or as a citizen to do research and support issues he finds are important.”

    So Souza will not share his findings with the people, candidates or campaigns he supports?

    And if so, what were the business relationships between Mr. Souza and these people & entities?

    “Souza has said that he did it for himself. That sounds like a no to me.”

    So Souza will not share his findings with the people, candidates or campaigns he supports?

    What were the results of the poll?

    “As the poll was not publicly funded, there is ABSOLUTELY no reason he should have to give the results. If you want the numbers, do your own poll.”

    Are you telling the community that Souza will not be sharing his findings with the people, candidates or campaigns he supports?

    Will any of these campaigns be reporting Mr. Souza’s polling efforts as paid services or in-kind services on their behalf?

    “Souza has said that he did it for himself. That sounds like a no to me.”

    This does not sound credible to me. According to you, Souza will not share his findings with the people, candidates or campaigns he supports? That is not believable. I believe it only makes sense that Souza has shared this information with others, especially those candidates and campaigns he supports. By doing so, Souza has to account for this expenditure of business resources being used for political purposes on his own campaign disclosure filings and/or those of the specific campaigns he is supporting, either for remuneration or as an in kind donation.

  286. Responding to:

    Anonymous @ 10/17/07 10:09 AM who said…“Just answering this as an observer:”

    Did the Yes on Measure Q campaign authorize Mr. Souza to act on its behalf by commissioning a poll?

    “No, nor do they need to. The poll was done by Souza for Souza. He has every right as a politician or as a citizen to do research and support issues he finds are important.”

    So Souza will not share his findings with the people, candidates or campaigns he supports?

    Did any school board members authorize Mr. Souza to conduct a poll?

    “No, nor do they need to. The poll was done by Souza for Souza. He has every right as a politician or as a citizen to do research and support issues he finds are important.”

    So Souza will not share his findings with the people, candidates or campaigns he supports?

    Did any of the school board candidates authorize Mr. Souza to act on their behalf by commissioning a poll?

    “No, nor do they need to. The poll was done by Souza for Souza. He has every right as a politician or as a citizen to do research and support issues he finds are important.”

    So Souza will not share his findings with the people, candidates or campaigns he supports?

    And if so, what were the business relationships between Mr. Souza and these people & entities?

    “Souza has said that he did it for himself. That sounds like a no to me.”

    So Souza will not share his findings with the people, candidates or campaigns he supports?

    What were the results of the poll?

    “As the poll was not publicly funded, there is ABSOLUTELY no reason he should have to give the results. If you want the numbers, do your own poll.”

    Are you telling the community that Souza will not be sharing his findings with the people, candidates or campaigns he supports?

    Will any of these campaigns be reporting Mr. Souza’s polling efforts as paid services or in-kind services on their behalf?

    “Souza has said that he did it for himself. That sounds like a no to me.”

    This does not sound credible to me. According to you, Souza will not share his findings with the people, candidates or campaigns he supports? That is not believable. I believe it only makes sense that Souza has shared this information with others, especially those candidates and campaigns he supports. By doing so, Souza has to account for this expenditure of business resources being used for political purposes on his own campaign disclosure filings and/or those of the specific campaigns he is supporting, either for remuneration or as an in kind donation.

  287. Responding to:

    Anonymous @ 10/17/07 10:09 AM who said…“Just answering this as an observer:”

    Did the Yes on Measure Q campaign authorize Mr. Souza to act on its behalf by commissioning a poll?

    “No, nor do they need to. The poll was done by Souza for Souza. He has every right as a politician or as a citizen to do research and support issues he finds are important.”

    So Souza will not share his findings with the people, candidates or campaigns he supports?

    Did any school board members authorize Mr. Souza to conduct a poll?

    “No, nor do they need to. The poll was done by Souza for Souza. He has every right as a politician or as a citizen to do research and support issues he finds are important.”

    So Souza will not share his findings with the people, candidates or campaigns he supports?

    Did any of the school board candidates authorize Mr. Souza to act on their behalf by commissioning a poll?

    “No, nor do they need to. The poll was done by Souza for Souza. He has every right as a politician or as a citizen to do research and support issues he finds are important.”

    So Souza will not share his findings with the people, candidates or campaigns he supports?

    And if so, what were the business relationships between Mr. Souza and these people & entities?

    “Souza has said that he did it for himself. That sounds like a no to me.”

    So Souza will not share his findings with the people, candidates or campaigns he supports?

    What were the results of the poll?

    “As the poll was not publicly funded, there is ABSOLUTELY no reason he should have to give the results. If you want the numbers, do your own poll.”

    Are you telling the community that Souza will not be sharing his findings with the people, candidates or campaigns he supports?

    Will any of these campaigns be reporting Mr. Souza’s polling efforts as paid services or in-kind services on their behalf?

    “Souza has said that he did it for himself. That sounds like a no to me.”

    This does not sound credible to me. According to you, Souza will not share his findings with the people, candidates or campaigns he supports? That is not believable. I believe it only makes sense that Souza has shared this information with others, especially those candidates and campaigns he supports. By doing so, Souza has to account for this expenditure of business resources being used for political purposes on his own campaign disclosure filings and/or those of the specific campaigns he is supporting, either for remuneration or as an in kind donation.

  288. Responding to:

    Anonymous @ 10/17/07 10:09 AM who said…“Just answering this as an observer:”

    Did the Yes on Measure Q campaign authorize Mr. Souza to act on its behalf by commissioning a poll?

    “No, nor do they need to. The poll was done by Souza for Souza. He has every right as a politician or as a citizen to do research and support issues he finds are important.”

    So Souza will not share his findings with the people, candidates or campaigns he supports?

    Did any school board members authorize Mr. Souza to conduct a poll?

    “No, nor do they need to. The poll was done by Souza for Souza. He has every right as a politician or as a citizen to do research and support issues he finds are important.”

    So Souza will not share his findings with the people, candidates or campaigns he supports?

    Did any of the school board candidates authorize Mr. Souza to act on their behalf by commissioning a poll?

    “No, nor do they need to. The poll was done by Souza for Souza. He has every right as a politician or as a citizen to do research and support issues he finds are important.”

    So Souza will not share his findings with the people, candidates or campaigns he supports?

    And if so, what were the business relationships between Mr. Souza and these people & entities?

    “Souza has said that he did it for himself. That sounds like a no to me.”

    So Souza will not share his findings with the people, candidates or campaigns he supports?

    What were the results of the poll?

    “As the poll was not publicly funded, there is ABSOLUTELY no reason he should have to give the results. If you want the numbers, do your own poll.”

    Are you telling the community that Souza will not be sharing his findings with the people, candidates or campaigns he supports?

    Will any of these campaigns be reporting Mr. Souza’s polling efforts as paid services or in-kind services on their behalf?

    “Souza has said that he did it for himself. That sounds like a no to me.”

    This does not sound credible to me. According to you, Souza will not share his findings with the people, candidates or campaigns he supports? That is not believable. I believe it only makes sense that Souza has shared this information with others, especially those candidates and campaigns he supports. By doing so, Souza has to account for this expenditure of business resources being used for political purposes on his own campaign disclosure filings and/or those of the specific campaigns he is supporting, either for remuneration or as an in kind donation.

  289. “Update: Stephen Souza has posted on the Vanguard this morning, he suggests that there was some confusion and that these calls were a survey for Measure Q and school board candidates rather than the Parks survey. The Vanguard will be checking into this and update the situation as new information becomes available.”

    Is the info available yet DPD? I believe it is but figure you won’t come back and correct the inaccurate reporting…

  290. “Update: Stephen Souza has posted on the Vanguard this morning, he suggests that there was some confusion and that these calls were a survey for Measure Q and school board candidates rather than the Parks survey. The Vanguard will be checking into this and update the situation as new information becomes available.”

    Is the info available yet DPD? I believe it is but figure you won’t come back and correct the inaccurate reporting…

  291. “Update: Stephen Souza has posted on the Vanguard this morning, he suggests that there was some confusion and that these calls were a survey for Measure Q and school board candidates rather than the Parks survey. The Vanguard will be checking into this and update the situation as new information becomes available.”

    Is the info available yet DPD? I believe it is but figure you won’t come back and correct the inaccurate reporting…

  292. “Update: Stephen Souza has posted on the Vanguard this morning, he suggests that there was some confusion and that these calls were a survey for Measure Q and school board candidates rather than the Parks survey. The Vanguard will be checking into this and update the situation as new information becomes available.”

    Is the info available yet DPD? I believe it is but figure you won’t come back and correct the inaccurate reporting…

Leave a Comment