Member of the Davis City Council Leaks A Constituent Communcation to Bob Dunning –
Member of the Davis City Council Leaks A Constituent Communcation to Bob Dunning – Written communications either sent via letter or electronically are considered public documents which are subject to the California Public Records Act. In fact, city staff often reads them, prints them out, and disseminates them as well.
The individual writes:
“I believe the most misrepresented aspect of the proposed wood smoke ordinance is the claims by some that it will engender a law enforcement nightmare. Opponents of the proposed ordinance, spurred on by our lovable Bob Dunning, claim that it will pit neighbor against neighbor and we’ll soon see secret furtive raids by wood smoke police breaking down doors at holiday parties and dragging out good, honest law-abiding citizens. Or that the police will be deluged by calls from citizens trying to turn in their wood burning neighbors like in the Communist countries of old. As I will explain further, I believe this is a red herring espoused by Dunning solely to scare the public and stir up emotional opposition to the entire concept of wood burning restrictions. It was not until Dunning made his public comments about this aspect that Staff then subsequently included it in their staff reports. Staff, however has not even tried to explain exactly HOW the ordinance is unenforceable. They just claim it will be. In fact, this ordinance was specifically designed to minimize efforts required by our police officers to enforce and enforcement of the proposed ordinance actually requires far less effort and has far less ambiguity in enforcing than for other municipal violations with far less adverse public health impacts such as for noise ordinance violations.”
The individual then goes on to thoughtfully discuss how other jurisdictions including Sacramento Air Quality Management District deal with the issue of enforcement.
The individual then writes in conclusion:
“In summary, Mr. Dunning’s claims that the wood smoke Nazis will be hovering around every wood burner in the city, ready to haul them away, is just plain silly to put it in its best possible light. Similarly, Staff’s claims that the proposed ordinance will usher in a huge administrative burden and put an inordinate work load on our police department is not supported by any facts. In fact, the evidence from the Sac AQMD suggests that very little effort will be required to enforce the provisions of the proposed ordinance and it could provide dramatic improvements in our air quality with very little effort.
Thank you for your consideration of this lengthy monologue. I hope I have cleared up any misconceptions you may have had.”
Again this is a public document, but one would not expect the city council to decide to use this as an opportunity to embarrass a member of the public by sending the communication to a newspaper columnist. While I have made public records act requests for email communications and very occasionally used them in the course of writing a story, I have never had a member of the council leak me a letter from a constituent in order to embarrass that constituent.
Mr. Dunning take the opportunity to write his Tuesday column, derisively calling this individual Mr. Ozone.
He writes:
“SMOKE ON THE BRAIN – one Davisite, who is so obsessed with banning anything that moves up a chimney that his e-mail address includes the word ‘ozone,’ wrote to all five council members, accusing me of being a ‘lovable’ rabble-rouser who exercises undue influence on the affairs of state – as evidence of this he offered ‘It was not until Dunning made his public comments about this aspect that Staff then subsequently included the charge of unenforceability in their Staff reports.’ –
I take the Fifth, your honor, but I will admit that city staff meets regularly in my living room, generally while roasting weenies around an open fire – my friend Mr. Ozone also says, ‘I believe this is a red herring espoused by Dunning solely to scare the public and stir up emotional opposition to the entire concept of wood burning restrictions.’ –
How did he know? – I mean, it’s right there in the lifetime contract I signed with this very newspaper 40 years ago: ‘Columnist must endeavor to scare the public on a regular basis, preferably five days per week.’ – look, I may be Catholic, but I don’t even like red herring – I prefer it pickled with sour cream – oh well, at least he got the ‘lovable’ part right -“
He then continues:
“BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING – Mr. Ozone, in his letter to the council that ran longer than the average papal encyclical, said fears of Big Brother are being greatly exaggerated, then goes on to explain the various invasive devices Big Brother has at his disposal to surreptitiously root out fireplace felons by dark of night –
According to Mr. Ozone, the policeman can ‘use an IR viewer to see the heated chimney if at night.’ – whether this will be a specially commissioned Fireplace Force used exclusively for smoke enforcement or whether these officers will be yanked off patrol is unclear – but there are a whole lot of folks recently laid off by the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department who are probably willing to work for minimum wage at this point, which is all we’ll be able to pay them if this thing passes –
He also notes that ‘Air Pollution Control Officers have simple ‘moisture meters’ to check wood content,’ but hopes they would never have to be used – one presumes these same moisture meters can serve as lie detectors by checking the sweat on the fireplace felon’s brow – finally, and incredibly, he argues against his own proposed ordinance’s necessity by noting that because the whole process is complaint-driven, ‘Clean burners will probably never even hear from the police even if they were burning on prohibited days.’ –
In other words, breaking the law under this new law is not likely to have any consequences at all for the law breaker – now that’s an interesting concept – “
Of course we could probably argue the same is true for the noise ordinance as well but it has proven to be quite useful at times when people have become a nuisance, which seems to be a point lost on everyone in this debate. The other point lost being that Davis is not the only jurisdiction in this state dealing with this issue and a lot of people are acting as if this is simply Davis being Davis.
All of these are aside from the point here. This is of course not the first time this has occurred with Bob Dunning who has been leaked emails from councilmembers on occasion.
Some will read this as a criticism of Dunning, but really it is questioning the propriety and appropriateness of a public and elected official leaking constituent communications to a columnist for the newspaper. Is there now somehow civility in lampooning the legitimate views of the citizenry? Does this help us advance and make for a more civil discourse? Did it better help us understand the highly contentious issue of woodburning?
I don’t think it did. What I do think will happen is that it will make people less likely to send such communications to members of the Davis City Council. I think it serves as a warning to us all that what we believe to be messages between ourselves and our duly elected public officials are in fact public documents. There is no doubt in my mind that more openness is a good think. But by the same measure, discretion is the better part of valor. I am more than a bit disturbed to see a public official partake in action to intentionally embarrass a member of the public who they happen to disagree with on a certain issue. That has a chilling effect on discourse and communication in this community in a way that someone obtaining a public document via a public records act request simply does not.
While I have my suspicions about the culprit here, I do not know which councilmember it is for certain. Nevertheless, I make a plea for civility here and simple courtesy. Just because one has the legal right to do something, does not mean the individual ought to do it.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
How does one ‘leak’ a public document?
In this case they forward an email without telling the public who did it. In this case it would explain the manner in which it was done rather than the fact that the communication was secret or private.
Isn’t it obvious that Don Saylor leaked the e-mail?
I’m a bit lost on this one. First, the offending council person didn’t lampoon anyone…that was done by Dunning. So I don’t see how the council person is responsible for the lampooning. Second, if people are writing the council to advocate their issues, why should that advocacy be kept secret? We should all know what information public decision makers have before them, which is the reason for the public records laws. I don’t really see your veiled attack on Saylor (using the civility buzzword but not honestly just saying what you mean) as any better than him or someone else passing this email through, especially in this case where Dunning is being directly attacked in the email.
I think Bob Dunning actually dress up as and goes by Stephen Souza at city council meetings.
“First, the offending council person didn’t lampoon anyone…that was done by Dunning.”
And if you lock someone up in a cage with lions, you are not responsible when the person gets eaten.
“In this case they forward an email without telling the public who did it.” It would seem that ‘who did it’ would also be public information available to anyone who made the effort to find out. Never the less, it was public information, so “leaking” seems to be an inflammatory word here. Public records are released, not leaked.
he forwarded the email to himself and then Dunning making it untraceable. Or simply copied and pasted it to his private account.
“While I have made public records act requests for email communications and very occasionally used them in the course of writing a story, I have never had a member of the council leak me a letter from a constituent in order to embarrass that constituent.”
A very fine distinction. I get the feeling you would not be complaining if you and Dunning agreed on the issue under discussion.
“While I have made public records act requests for email communications and very occasionally used them in the course of writing a story, I have never had a member of the council leak me a letter from a constituent in order to embarrass that constituent.”
A very fine distinction. I get the feeling you would not be complaining if you and Dunning agreed on the issue under discussion.
I think things need to be done the proper way regardless of whether or not I agree with a view expressed or an outcome. Also my criticism here is not with Dunning but the Councilmember who forwarded the email.
DPD: Send something to the City, assume it will be published above the fold on the front page of the Davis Enterprise. Or quoted by Bob Dunning. I always assumed any email or letter to/from me and others on city business was a public record and usable by anyone. And letters to the CC usually appear in the weekly meeting packet, meaning the letters are published online in pdf format. Dunning can read them from that source.
The writer of the email seems like a sophisticated person, so I seriously doubt that he/she would be surprised that someone at the city would forward it to Dunning.
However, there is a bit of judgment that has to be used by CC members, and I tried not to embarrass people if they wrote something that might be considered off the wall.
In terms of the email at issue here, he expresses a solid viewpoint and no one should make fun of it. I would have voted for a stronger result than the voluntary one approved by the CC.
The council person who forwarded the email to Dunning knew full well that Dunning would lampoon the author. Comments sent to our council may be public documents, but I believe that most who email to the council members believe that their comments will remain private, between them and the council members. The council person who sent this to Dunning did it for the express purpose of embarrassing the author. Let this serve as a warning that anything you send to council or to the City can end up in the newspaper.
I do not believe there have ever been any letters sent to the Council pertaining to the firewood issue that were ever published online in the Council packets. It looks to me like the City has decided to save paper to help their budget and just leaking stuff to the Enterprise so they have to use up their paper stock instead. In fact, this is the 2nd or 3rd time during this wood smoke issue that a letter from a constituent to the Council or a report to them has ended up in Dunning’s hands almost immediately.
From the sidelines, I think the author is technically sophiticated but obviously a bit politically naive if he thinks his opponents on the Council won’t blindside him if they get the chance. And I think it is pretty clear this not-illegal “leak” was done to embarrass the writer by giving fodder to Dunning. The timing is the thing. If the letter was sent on the weekend and published by Dunning on Tuesday (with a Mon AM deadline), then it had to be leaked to Dunning almost immediately after the Councilmember received it. It’s not pretty but it’s not illegal either.
A letter sent to all 5 council members would then have to be placed in the council packet under “communications.” The letter was a public document. Under these conditions, there is no expectation for privacy on the part of the letter writer.
The letter writer could have made his arguments without derogatory comments about Bob Dunning. But, since he did, then it is only fair that Bob Dunning see what is going to be published about him. I really don’t see anything wrong with Bob’s column.
The ordinance was unenforceable unless neighbors called in a complaint and police responded. This is not a public safety issue, so it would be put on the back burner.
Neighbors reporting on neighbors, police coming to knock on doors, no warrants, people fearful. Sounds like shades of Nazi Germany.
People in Davis were thinking this long before Dunning’s column. I didn’t read Dunning’s column about the proposed ordinance and I thought this. It is silly for the letter writer to believe that Dunning was the source of the opposition to this ordinance or that he led some sort of campaign against it.
Once the letter was sent to CC members, it was public. What a CC member or Dunning did with it is immaterial. Either you are for transparency or you are not. I am for transparency.
That said, I am not a big fan of Dunning. IMHO, he has become a guttersnipe, and belittles anyone that doesn’t agree with him at will. Belittling just shows the person doing so does not have the confidence to make a logical argument on his own two feet in front of CC. I stopped reading Dunning long ago. I don’t enjoy his “repartee” of skewering private individuals – its nasty.
However, as far as the woodburing ordinance goes, I agree w Don Shor’s position, and think we ought to implement Sacramento’s system and be done with it. Why reinvent the wheel?
[quote]The council person who sent this to Dunning did it for the express purpose of [u]embarrassing the author[/u].[/quote] This is a strange story and a strange accusation. It was the author of the letter who called out Bob Dunning by name in a public document. The author of the letter [i]should[/i] express his views on enforceability if he thinks Bob got the facts wrong. He did not have to do so by mentioning anyone by name. Yet, if you read Dunning’s column, Bob [i]never[/i] mentions the name of the author of that letter. I still have no idea who wrote it.
My comments above aside, I think David does a public service in clarifying the law about public documents: perhaps some people were unaware that letters and emails they write to public officials are part of the public record, and from now on they will know.
Thanks primarily to Steve Souza, we at least have a reporting system for complaints. The air downtown is terrible on foggy winter nights. Lots of fireplaces in these older homes. And trucks.
Greenwald said,
“Also my criticism here is not with Dunning but the Councilmember who forwarded the email”
I don’t get it. Communications to or from public officials relating to proposed legislation before them are public documents. “Public” means that anyone who wants to see them should have the opportunity to do so. Ideally, the Inboxes of council members should be available to the general public. One of my criticisms of this blog is the propensity of the author to release snippets of communications without revealing the author. If the document is public, please publish it in its entirety, including the author’s name. If it is private, respect that privacy.
As for the charge of “In summary, Mr. Dunning’s claims that the wood smoke Nazis will be hovering around every wood burner in the city, ready to haul them away, is just plain silly to put it in its best possible light.” It may be silly, but the NRC in their original recommendation did in fact propose that a person who burned wood (or even a Duraflame Log) three times in a year on non-approved days could be sentenced to jail for up to 6 months. No, that is not Nazism, but I leave it to the reader to decide if it was extreme or not.
(Ps. Although I criticise this blog from time to time, I think it is the best thing to happen to Davis in a long time.)
Observer: Thank you. My point here is really that just because one has the right to do something, does not mean they ought to it. I don’t see the purpose it served the public to have Dunning lampoon the letter. I probably did the individual a huge disservice because 90% of the letter addressed the issues and I posted the intro and conclusion for the sake brevity.
“And letters to the CC usually appear in the weekly meeting packet, meaning the letters are published online in pdf format. “
“A letter sent to all 5 council members would then have to be placed in the council packet under “communications.” “
The City Council packet has neither included letters in the packet nor listed the letters in the agenda for several years now, and I think this makes it much harder for citizens to connect with other people who share their issues.
DPD: “My point here is really that just because one has the right to do something, does not mean they ought to it. I don’t see the purpose it served the public to have Dunning lampoon the letter. I probably did the individual a huge disservice because 90% of the letter addressed the issues and I posted the intro and conclusion for the sake brevity.”
Are you saying that Dunning should not lampoon anyone that is a private citizen who sends a letter to CC and not to him directly? How far are you willing to take this? Are you saying Dunning should not lampoon anyone that is a private citizen who writes a letter to any public entity, such as the Davis Enterprise? I am not getting your distinction here? When does such a letter become public enough for you to OK it for lampooning by Bob Dunning, or should lampooning private citizens never be done?
I am not defending Dunning – can’t stand his column bc it tends to be condescending, vicious, and spiteful about private citizens. But once a letter becomes public, I guess I don’t understand the line you are trying to draw as to when it is “appropriate” for a satirist to lampoon?
IMHO, if the letter becomes public, it is fair game for anyone to lampoon. It is part of the public process, and transparency. I suspect the author in this case is a big boy/girl and can take Dunning’s spoiled little diatribe. That a CC member sent the letter to Dunning doesn’t really enter the equation, since the letter was public once that was done. Or are you really saying that a letter sent to the CC should only be for CC eyes? Your position is just not making sense to me. Why not just say you can’t stand Dunning’s below the belt tactics with respect to the opinions of private citizens?
Confused: Did you real the full column and my subsequent comments where I stated: “Some will read this as a criticism of Dunning, but really it is questioning the propriety and appropriateness of a public and elected official leaking constituent communications to a columnist for the newspaper.”
David,
Other than the lampooning part — wherein Dunning never mentions the person’s name, so really how “embarrassing” could this possibly be — I don’t understand why you think a member of the city council — if that’s who it was; it doesn’t seem to me it would have to be a member of the CC who sent it — is at fault here, when it was the letter writer who brought up Dunning by name and centered the letter around Dunning’s argument. I would think any public official or public employee who got the letter and knows Bob would think, “This is all about what Dunning wrote. Bob should get a look at it too if this guy is talking about him.” I see no reason whatsoever, then, to castigate the person who passed the email onto Dunning, the person who was being attacked by the letter writer.
“Confused: Did you real the full column and my subsequent comments where I stated: “Some will read this as a criticism of Dunning, but really it is questioning the propriety and appropriateness of a public and elected official leaking constituent communications to a columnist for the newspaper.””
Yes, I read the full column and your subsequent comments. I am still unclear about your position. You are questioning the propriety and appropriateness of a public and elected official “leaking” constituent communications to a columnist for the newspaper. Does that mean you don’t think letters sent by citizens to the CC should be considered public? Or that they are somehow quasi-public and not subject to distribution to anyone? At what point do you feel the letter sent by a citizen to the CC becomes fully public, in the sense that Dunning has a right to a copy of it, and the freedom to lampoon? This is the point I am not clear on.
Or let me frame the question a bit differently. If you made a records request of the CC, to be given copies of all letters from the public sent to the CC on the subject of the woodburning issue, would the CC have to give you a copy of the letter in question? If yes, do you believe that no one has a right to lampoon such a letter just bc it came from a private citizen?
I am really finding your posture on this issue confusing. Take this statement from you: “Just because one has the legal right to do something, does not mean the individual ought to do it.” So in your opinion, under what conditions and with whom would it be appropriate for a CC member to share a letter received from a private citizen? Or is it your position that such letters should never be divulged to anyone for any reason?
Ryan:
The comments to the council were in the form of an email to them only. The comments were to clarify to the council things that Dunning and others had mis-stated. Nothing in the email about Dunning was to be published anywhere. It went only to the council.
The ordinance would have been just as enforcable as our noise ordinance, or the ordinance covering not disposing of hazardous waste in our garbage or in the storm drain or any other such ordinance. It was to be complaint based, so if someone was burning improperly on a non-burn day, and the smoke was bothering their neighbor, the neighbor could report it.
This is a serious health issue. Wood smoke is hazardous for everyone, but especially for the elderly, our children and those with respiratory or heart problems. For some, it is deadly. Even Dr. Cahill supported mandatory no-burn days!
As the author of the “outed” letter to the Council, I can unequivocably tell you that it was sent to the five Council members and no one else. No one else saw any drafts and no one got any copies. And it was sent out at about 10:00 PM on Sunday eve so for Dunning to meet his Monday AM deadline for Tuesday’s column that letter had to have been forwarded by someone on the Council almost immediately.
And I can also tell you that very little of the letter was about Dunning. In fact, I think every phrase that mentioned his name in the five page letter I sent to Council is reprinted above. The vast bulk of the letter concerned the false issues raised about the difficulty and cost of enforcibility raised by various opponents of wood burning; of which Dunning is clearly the most outspoken. Perhaps the Vanguard should print the letter in its entirety which I have provided so readers could judge for themselves whether the focus was on Dunning or not. Or one could watch the Council meeting replay where I put almost everything that I said in the Council letter into the PowerPoint presentation I gave at the meeting. I have nothing to hide and have never said anything privately to the Council that I have not said publicly – either about my opposition to the toxic and carcinogenic atmospheric pollution produced by wood burners or about my opinion of the printed pollution produced by Bob Dunning.
And truth be told, the more Dunning writes about the wood burning issue the more people call me to say they support restrictions. Having Bob Dunning disparage my efforts to limit wood burning has the same effect as having Rush Limbaugh rant about Obama and the Democrats…it helps the effort when the public sees what nut cases are on the other side of the issue. Why do you think I continue to bait him with Op-Eds in the Enterprise? So I really do not have a problem with the information getting to Dunning. It was just the sleazy way it was forwarded secretly to him in the dead of night and then the sender not have the moral courage to stand up and acknowledge their role that makes this a story.
Note that I have since sent another letter to the Council asking each of them pointedly if it was they who sent the letter. Nobody has responded either ‘yea’ or ‘nay’ so I still do not have a clue who forwarded the letter. There must be some unwritten code of silence the Council is honoring amongst themselves.
Still Confused: I think it’s throwing the person in the lion’s cage analogy that about sums it up.
One point of correction I would make to Alan’s post that I tried to explain yesterday is that staff reads council emails, so while it is likely that a councilmember is the one that sent the email to Dunning, so it’s not outside of the realm of possibility that it was not.
I think what sums it up is that DPD thinks Saylor did it, so he is willing to throw aside his normally spot on views about government openness, free speech, etc., in order to do a hit piece on Saylor. It’s a public record once someone hits the send button, so support of openness would suggest that a councilperson is free to share it with anyone they want. In fact, I think it would be a good idea to have correspondence to council persons be posted on the city website, so everyone can see who is advocating for what. Second, Dunning is free to say whatever he wants about it…even if what he says is idiotic. That’s called free speech. People are then free to read or not read. Instead, playing into one of his blindspots, DPD is arguing here that a public record should not have been shared because it resulted in the author being lampooned by Bob Dunning, which didn’t “serve the public.” Well, I’d prefer that DPD nor anyone else make that call on how information should be censored. I don’t think DPD would support such censorship, except in the case where he sees an opportunity to take a pot shot at Saylor.
[quote]As the author of the “outed” letter to the Council, I can unequivocably tell you that it was sent to the five Council members and no one else. [/quote] By outing yourself, you are saying that you were not embarrassed by anything Bob wrote. Had you not outed yourself here, no one in the general public ever would have known (or really cared) who wrote your letter to the members of the council. Dunning didn’t care enough to refer to your name in his column. You, however, did mention Dunning by name, and thus (I would guess) it was your mentioning him by name which gave him interest in your letter.
I’m still a bit perplexed by David’s position on all of this. I was thinking, had some anonymous letter writer written an email to all five members of the council claiming by name that David was wrong on “this, that and the other,” and then one of the members of the council forwarded that letter to David, expressly because the letter was a renunciation of David’s argument (say in a Vanguard piece), I cannot imagine David getting upset with that member of the council; nor can I imagine anyone in his right mind worry if David then quoted from the letter to the City Council which refuted his point of view, but David never once mentioned the name of the letter writer. This whole contention that someone on the CC did something wrong or that Dunning “embarrassed” someone smacks of hypocrisy.
I don’t see David supporting censorship here, only suggested that whoever did it might have used better discretion. Censorship implies legal sanction, David has already acknowledged there is no legal authority here. Just because it’s not illegal, doesn’t make it the right thing to do.
“I don’t see David supporting censorship here, only suggested that whoever did it might have used better discretion. Censorship implies legal sanction, David has already acknowledged there is no legal authority here. Just because it’s not illegal, doesn’t make it the right thing to do.”
I still don’t understand DPD’s position, from a logical point of view. He isn’t upset with Dunning, but with the CC member who sent a public letter to Dunning. I cannot get a read on what exactly DPD feels this CC member did wrong. DPD’s position is even more puzzling in light of the letter writer’s own statements, that what was said in the letter had already been said at the City Council meeting. I really am baffled.
However, I do think Dunning is getting the worst end of this, which I have to say is delicious irony. The letter writer should be LOL!
To: “However, I do think Dunning is getting the worst end of this, which I have to say is delicious irony. The letter writer should be LOL!”
….I am!
But one point of clarification…Dunning’s article came out BEFORE the Council meeting which would have never happened had not the letter been leaked. And it was leaked in an obvious attempt to preemptively discredit my presentation to the Council.
I am not ashamed of what I wrote. I openly identified myself in the letter to the Council and do so in every letter or blog I write so I could care less if Dunning used my name or not. But don’t kid yourself that people did not know exactly who Dunning was talking about when he was referring to me as Mr. Ozone. I got at least half a dozen joke emails to me after his article starting out’ So…Mr. Ozone”
As I said above, the only really unseeming part of all this is that the Council member who did leak it did it quickly, in the dead of night, and then does not have the backbone to identify themselves now that their actions have seen the light of day.
For those who want to know which council member forwarded the letter, why don’t you just make a simple public record request asking for all council member e-mails to Bob Dunning between the time the letter was sent and the time Dunning published. This would be about the easiest public record request ever made. You would learn something interesting about the character of your council members.
To Anon 5:23 PM – If the sender was leaking the letter I don’t think they would send it from their CC account.
Assume staff reads everything sent to the CC via the City web site. It’s a public document, anything that is in that system.
When I was on the CC, I refused to use the city web email system, and instead had everything sent to my dcn.org address. It was the only way to assure any minimum level of confidentiality. You send it to the city web site, you are sending it to senior staff.
“But one point of clarification…Dunning’s article came out BEFORE the Council meeting which would have never happened had not the letter been leaked. And it was leaked in an obvious attempt to preemptively discredit my presentation to the Council.”
Now I get DPD’s position – he doesn’t like the pre-emptive strike aspect of this. However, I would note citizens need to be given a bit more credit than assuming such a tactic will somehow change their minds; the pre-emptive strike was perfectly legal and within bounds. Just think of it this way – you know you have gotten to the opposition when they have to resort to such petty tactics! Congrats!!
I believe that Sarah Palin got in trouble for assuming that city-related communication from her personal e-mail account would be exempt from public records act requests.
I believe that Sarah Palin got in trouble for assuming that city-related communication from her personal e-mail account would be exempt from public records act requests.
Dunning’s move was done with underhanded panache; say what you will about his content, he does his job with style, mainly entertainingly. DPD could learn a lot by studying his columns, rather than simply cutting and pasting them interspersed with his opinions of them.
“Dunning’s move was done with underhanded panache; say what you will about his content, he does his job with style, mainly entertainingly. DPD could learn a lot by studying his columns, rather than simply cutting and pasting them interspersed with his opinions of them.”
Some like Dunning’s nasty style of poking fun at private citizens, as if Dunning himself is so much smarter than all the rest of us and the “arbiter of all things right and relevant”. Frankly, many in Davis have grown tired of Dunning’s snarky comments relative to private citizens, especially when they are below the belt. I stopped reading Dunning long ago, when an issue arose in which he clearly showed he was bought and paid for by City Council members (can’t remember the issue now, but he took a certain position, then completely flipped to the other side when a certain CC member came out as on the other side).
I often wondered if anonymous postings to this blog are truly anonymous. For example, can David or the blog administrator capture the IP address of the blogger and use this to identify him/her? Unlike journalists that at least have a code of ethics (although most routinely disregard these days) bloggers – especially those with a political axe to grind – do not.
Hopefully none that frequently blog to this site ever intend to run for political office on a platform against what David believes in, because what you blog could very well be used against you.
In response to anonymous, No I cannot capture the IP address of the blogger and use it to identify him or her. IP addresses at best can be traced to the internet service provider. Now law enforcement has the ability through help from the ISP to track who may have used that particular IP address, but even then they may not be able to unless it is a fixed IP as opposed to a variable or random one.
“No I cannot capture the IP address of the blogger and use it to identify him or her.”
I can explain how to do that if you are interested. It is not too difficult.
My larger point: in the current game of politics and press there is not much that is truly private. And, politicians have been strategically using the press/media since its existence to embarrass and disparage opposition. Look what happened to supporters of Prop-8.
So, I don’t get the significance of this issue/blog. It seems to me a weak attempt to cast Saylor and Dunning in a bad light. A more interesting and relevant blog could have addressed the larger issue of the media becoming more and more political influence apparatus, rather than a source of news.
Your post about protecting anonymity is very ironic in light of developments today. More on that perhaps in the next few weeks.
What developments? Do we need to change all our credit cards?