The Davis Chamber of Commerce announced a few months ago that they wanted to have a more active role. That they have as they have endorsed three candidates for Davis City Council – Lucas Frerichs, Stephen Souza, and Dan Wolk.
“Davis residents are strongly encouraged to support these three candidates because each of them has demonstrated a firm commitment to promote, support and advocate for the general economic vitality of the business community of Davis and the quality of life for the community,” the Chamber said in a press release.
“Frerichs, Souza and Wolk have the vision and demonstrated commitment to build a more socially, environmentally, and economically sustainable community. They are all collaborative, solution oriented leaders.”
In 1997, the Chamber created a Political Action Committee to “support (or oppose) local, county or state ballot measures which impact the business environment in Davis.”
Formed and operated under the guidelines of the California Secretary of State, the Davis Chamber PAC is financially separated from the membership organization. The sole funding source for the PAC is voluntary contributions by individual members of the Davis Chamber of Commerce. No funds from the operating budget of the Chamber are used to support PAC activities.
Over the years, the Chamber PAC has supported a variety of local measures including “Yes for Our Students” in 1999, 2004, 2007 and 2008; “Yes on City Parks” in 1998 and 2002; and “Yes on the Davis Library Branch” in 2007.
However, other than supporting things like the parcel tax, the Chamber has not played a role in campaigns involving officer holders. That has now changed.
The Chamber PAC’s guidelines have been recently modified to allow for the possible support of local candidates for elected office.
The Davis Chamber of Commerce Political Action Committee believes that it is imperative that the Davis community has political leadership capable of fostering a community that is not only socially and environmentally sustainable, but also economically sustainable.
“When we started this endeavor we really felt like in order to have a vibrant community in Davis, we needed to look at the three legs of this concept of sustainability which is the social justice, environmental and economic,” said Steve Greenfield who is chairing the Chamber PAC’s efforts.
He added, “We really felt like that last one, that economic sustainability is what we needed as businesses to focus on in what is frequently overlooked in Davis.”
“Our community deserves elected officials and government staff who are willing and able to constructively work with community organizations and private industry to find solutions for current and future community challenges,” the release stated.
“ChamberPAC efforts are not intended to start and end with the June election. Rather, these efforts shall be ongoing to ensure we do not lose sight of the critical importance a robust, local economy has in sustaining the well-being of the community,” the release said.
“We felt we really needed to elevate the community conversation about the necessity of creating jobs and a vibrant economy and economic opportunity,” Mr. Greenfield stated.
He added, “A prerequisite to that success is to have councilmembers that agree that more community attention must be given to fostering a more robust local economy.”
They also looked toward candidates that would “make sure the council was functional and cooperative.”
The ChamberPAC interviewed all five City of Davis 2012 City Council candidates and hosted a lively candidate debate in April.
The release added, “ChamberPAC efforts are not intended to start and end with the June election. Rather, these efforts shall be ongoing to ensure we do not lose sight of the critical importance a robust, local economy has in sustaining the well being of the community.”
In an earlier release, the Chamber noted: “Like communities across the globe dealing with the economic recession, our community has been through a very difficult period of adjustment in the past five years. Our schools and city are confronted with significant structural budget deficits. The Davis Joint Unified School District and City of Davis have cut a number of services affecting our quality of life with talk of more service cuts still to come.”
The Chamber is clear concerned about the state of the community and some of the same issues that have emerged from time to time.
They note, “Parcel tax measures and fee increases have been implemented with yet more proposals under consideration to fund remaining services. Deferred maintenance on streets, water, and other vital infrastructure continue to accrue with no clear strategy to address these deficits threatening to further degrade our quality of life.”
“Yet many community opinion makers insist that we must maintain the status quo and abdicate our collective responsibility to effectively address these challenges to our quality of life,” they wrote a few months ago. “The Chamber PAC believes that our community and elected officials must take a more proactive role in this time of uncertainty. The Davis Chamber of Commerce does not relish engaging in local politics; it would much rather focus on policy, projects, and job creation to improve our quality of life.”
However, they argued, “However, it would be irresponsible not to act. “Business as usual” is no longer a viable course of action. It is imperative that the Davis community has political leadership capable of fostering a community that is not only socially and environmentally sustainable, but also economically sustainable.”
The Chamber had previously announced that they were endorsing the Parks Maintenance Tax, Measure D.
“The ChamberPAC supports Measure D, the 2012 Parks Maintenance Tax, and urges voters to Vote YES on Measure D in the upcoming June 2012 election,” the release stated.
“The special amenities provided by the City of Davis improve the quality of life of the citizens and also benefit the business community,” they state. “City parks are important component of the quality of life in developed areas, and adequate maintenance is essential both to assure parks perform that function and to prevent degradation on park properties.”
–David M. Greenwald reporting
I fully support the chamber of commerce becoming more actively involved in our local elections. I believe they represent an important segment of our community and it is important that they are able to represent that segment effectively.
I wish them long-term success.
As I said before, I consider this an unfortunate direction for the Chamber to go. I see no reason to believe that Brett (for example) would be worse for business interests than those they endorsed. At least one of the candidates has taken positions in the past that are harmful to downtown retail interests. So it is regrettable that the Chamber is now allied with specific candidates, as it diminishes their possible future role as an honest broker in fostering communication between policy makers and the business community.
But with one entrenched incumbent, who, in the eyes of myself and, I suppose, others, is unfit to serve, it becomes necessary to stand up and be heard for what is in the best interests of the community. I’m sure they found it hard to throw Brett under the bus as they did but there are only three slots.
It’s alarming that the Chamber openly wants to control city government.
Two of the candidates have helped get the city into expensive problems, so the selection of the 3 chosen is strange.
One of those three has been downright harmful to Davis’s interests, in my opinion. That casts doubt on the other two by association. Bullet voting for Sue Greenwald is looking ever more attractive.
[quote]it is regrettable that the Chamber is now allied with specific candidates, as it diminishes their possible future role as an honest broker in fostering communication between policy makers and the business community. [/quote]
Yes, indeed.
I think this is an unwise move and may backfire on the chamber.
DON: [i]… it is regrettable that the Chamber is now allied with specific candidates, as it diminishes their possible future role as an honest broker in fostering communication between policy makers and the business community.”[/i]
I don’t necessarily agree with the Chamber’s choices–I have not yet made up my mind on whom I will vote for; and due to my role as a columnist I won’t publicly endorse anyone–but I see no reason why the Chamber PAC should not endorse candidates for City Council.
Compared with a union of city employees endorsing a candidate (or much worse giving time and money to a candidate) or compared with a contractor who does business with the city or a developer who stands to directly profit by land use decisions of the city funding a candidate, a more general interest group like the Chamber endorsing does not create ethical problems for the council members or give the appearance of a conflict of interest when council members must vote on various issues.
As far as I know, the Chamber of Commerce does not do any direct business with the City.
That said, this could backfire on the Chamber if its endorsements create animosity of those who win and are not endorsed by the Chamber. I suppose that is a risk they think is worth taking.
David thanks for adding the video
Will the PAC disclose its donors ?
Yes. Weekly
How ironic! Of all people, Mike Harrington asking whether the PAC will disclose it’s donors. Isn’t this the guy who refused to disclose who was funding the water referendum until well after the signature gathering period had concluded? And all along it was Mike who was the primary financial backer.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
Mr DT: Thank you for your kudos to me helping a great team of caring friends and neighbors with stopping a $500 million ripoff of the ratepayers in Davis and Woodland
There you go again, Mike, side-stepping your lack of transparency and disclosure issues.
It is regrettable that the business community hasn’t previously effectively advocated for a vibrant local economy to ensure the community has the financial wherewithal to fund critical services, amenities such as pools and parks, and schools. I could not disagree more with those who argue the business community should sit passively on the sidelines in these challenging times. Dr. Wu, you really think that’s a losing argument? Furthermore, you are very mistaken if you think this advocacy doesn’t have broad business backing that extends far beyond the Chamber.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
You might wish to ask yourself, Michael (and Kemble) why the Davis Chamber has so few retail members. By my count, assuming the directory is reasonably up to date, there are 17 non-grocery retail members.
Don, I asked the retailers whether they would back this effort. The answer is “yes”.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
Then why aren’t they members of the Chamber?
If this were just a matter of endorsing candidates it would be one thing,
but the idea of ongoing collaboration out of public view does not sound
good. It it reminiscent of DACHA: too many council members and city staffers helping their “friend”, and now the bills are adding up.
If the Chamber doesn’t have many retail members, who are the rest?
Don, are you saying the decline in Chamber retailers has happened in the last 2 months when the Chamber began this effort?
Eagle eye, you’re equating adocating for a robust local economy with the Dacha program? Generating jobs and revenue results in million dollar lawsuits? Really?
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
And eagle eye, when are you going to express your concern about “ongoing collaboration out of public view” pertaining to the advocacy of other Davis interest groups (e.g. the neighborhood advocates, the bicycle advocates, the environmental advocates, the civil right advocates, the seniors advocates, the “progressives”)? Why the handwringing over advocating for economic sustainability, but not environmental or social sustainability?
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
I am very troubled by the vagueness of the distinction between the Chamber and the Chamber PAC. Who actually chose to endorse these 3 candidates — the membership organization or the one that is funded by voluntary donations made to support elections (presumably a smaller group than the membership organization)? The implication in the endorsement is that the Davis business community endorses these 3 candidates (when it is only a small portion of the Davis business community), and the vagueness of the distinction between the Chamber and the Chamber PAC further clouds this issue.
I am also troubled by the Chamber’s claim to be a better judge of what’s good for the local economy than the rest of us — apparently because they run businesses. But that only makes them experts in assessing what’s financially best for private businesses in Davis (or perhaps only a few businesses in Davis). The implication in their comments — that what’s financially best for private businesses in Davis is necessarily what’s best for the Davis economy — sounds like a gross overgeneralization to me.
Robin W, I take it you are just as troubled by all other associations. For example, only Davis Bicycles! apparently knows what’s good for bicyclists. And only religious organizations are experts on spiritual matters. Very troubling indeed.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
If the Chamber does not have many Davis retailers as members, does that mean that most businesses in the Chamber do not contribute much to much-needed Davis sales tax revenues?
[i]Don, are you saying the decline in Chamber retailers has happened in the last 2 months when the Chamber began this effort?
[/i]
Michael, are you reading something into my comments that I haven’t said or implied?
It’s not a “decline”. The Chamber has never had a significant representation of retailers.
Barbara:
[img]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/DavisChamber2012.png[/img]
[url]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/DavisChamber2012.png[/url]
Thanks, Don. I did some quick math, and–if I typed the numbers in right–70 or 316 members are in real estate or construction. That is 22%, nearly 1/4 of the Chamber members.
Do we know which members of the Chamber chose to contribute to the PAC?
“You might wish to ask yourself, Michael (and Kemble) why the Davis Chamber has so few retail members. By my count, assuming the directory is reasonably up to date, there are 17 non-grocery retail members.”
Don, why did you select this category of membership on which to base your question (“non-grocery retail”)? Until you posted the chart, I gathered the organization has but a few members based on your comment about 17 members. You chart seems to reflect more than 300. I don’t see any grocery or non-grocery indicators in the chart.
Why are you concerned about “only” 17 Davis retail members? Why have the numbers been, as you noted, in this range forever? Davis has few sizeable retail stores; maybe 17 picks up most of the ones that can afford the time and money it takes to join in? Is there some history of public dispute between the smaller retail shops and the Chamber of Commerce?
Are you a member? Did you participate in the group’s debate about whether to endorse?
Michael Bisch — I am not questioning whether people who run private businesses have expertise in what is in the best financial interest of such businesses. But again, you are again implying/claiming that what is in the best financial interest of private businesses in Davis is necessarily the best for the Davis economy. I disagree. There is more to the Davis economy than generating profits for private businesses.
Robin, this is the only claim I’ve made here, implied or explicit:
“It is regrettable that the business community hasn’t previously effectively advocated for a vibrant local economy to ensure the community has the financial wherewithal to fund critical services, amenities such as pools and parks, and schools. I could not disagree more with those who argue the business community should sit passively on the sidelines in these challenging times. Dr. Wu, you really think that’s a losing argument? Furthermore, you are very mistaken if you think this advocacy doesn’t have broad business backing that extends far beyond the Chamber.”
Robin W, whether you own a business or not, I assure you that your participation in advocating for and striving to foster a robust local economy. The DDBA, for instance, has a parking committee, a visioning committee, and a marketing committee that all could use additional volunteers to further their good work. And there are of course any number of additional means by which you could help foster a robust local economy which is essential to a sustainable community.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
Whoops! I meant to write:
“Robin W, whether you own a business or not, I assure you that your participation in advocating for and striving to foster a robust local economy is most welcome.”
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
So Souza Freirichs and Wolk have been endorsed by people in real estate and construction.
Are we supposed to feel better about them as candidates now?
Is it just a coincidence that this business PAC is created and comes forward to exert its political/economic “muscle” in the Council race as the issue of the unequal water rate structure that subsidizes commercial interests is being looked at?
“You might wish to ask yourself, Michael (and Kemble) why the Davis Chamber has so few retail members.”
And
“Michael, are you reading something into my comments that I haven’t said or implied?”
Don, you’re right, I did assume that your first statement was implying a connection to political advocacy. So why did you you make the statement in conjunction with the Chamber PAC endorsement? Or is your comment off topic?
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
“You might wish to ask yourself, Michael (and Kemble) why the Davis Chamber has so few retail members.”
Even though this is off topic, Don, I’d like your insight as to why this is the case. And why is it extremely challenging to activate the numerous retailers who are DDBA members (not necessarily by choice)? I have my own insights, but your insights could prove valuable.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
“70 or 316 members are in real estate or construction. That is 22%, nearly 1/4 of the Chamber members.”
If you add financial services, banking, insurance property management, insurance, all support businesses for the real estate/developer interests, the number rises to approx. 138 of 316.
The real question is not the make up of the chamber, the chamber membership did not vote on this, but rather the committee that comprises the PAC which they have gone to lengths to ensure is autonomous.
It is not off topic, Michael, and once again you have intentionally misconstrued my comments by employing the rhetorical devices of reductionism and misdirection.
I never implied that the current political focus had caused a decline in Chamber retail membership. The Chamber has never had a strong retail component and has never done a good job of representing retailers. In fact, in the past the Chamber has taken positions that have been directly harmful to their retail members. They have now endorsed the one incumbent who has arguably done more direct harm to downtown and neighborhood shopping center retailers than anyone else on the Council.
Most people think “the Chamber” represents business interests, but they need to understand that the Davis Chamber does not represent retail business interests. The ChamberPAC, by its very name, implies the endorsement of local business interests, no matter how often they state that the funding is separate and voluntary. If it is separate and voluntary, call it something else. It isn’t autonomous if it’s using the Chamber name.
You’re head of the DDBA. You have dozens of retail members who are not members of the Chamber. The majority of your retail members are not in the Chamber. Ask them yourself why they choose not to bother paying the nominal fee of membership in the Chamber.
[i]”DDBA members (not necessarily by choice)”[/i] — why do you bother with the modifier ‘necessarily’? Nobody in the DDBA assessment district has [i]any[/i] choice about membership in the DDBA. So while members of the Chamber can quit over the political positions of the organization (as I did in 2006 after 25 years of nearly consistent membership), nobody in DDBA can ever quit. Therefore I strongly urge you to be very cautious in taking political positions in your role as DDBA leader.
davisite2, if you add everyone that lives in a house or apartment, the number rises to approx. 316 of 316. This is getting pretty silly. All 5 candidates willingly participated in the process, none were coerced. They are all busy individuals, so they all presumably feel it’s of value. To his credit, Brett Lee, even after the announcement has publicly stated that this effort is of value to the community.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
I’d also like to point out that the business leadership is well on its way to achieving its objectives. The primary objective is to elevate the community conversation regarding the need for a robust local economy. That is happening. Another objective was to help the council FOCUS on fostering a robust local economy. That is happening. Another objective is to help the council improve its governance. That is happening. The same is true of all the objectives stated in the PAC’s initial press release announcing this effort. I have no doubt that the Chamber PAC is furthering the Chamber’s stated mission, is providing the community a great service, and the community recognizes it as such.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
“…
The real question is not the make up of the chamber, the chamber membership did not vote on this, but rather the committee that comprises the PAC which they have gone to lengths to ensure is autonomous.”
Autonomous ? Anonymous ? Or both ? If the latter, it certainly would say something about the transparency or lack thereof of those endorsing a candidate. I am very much in favor of knowing who the individuals are ( or rather what business or interest group they are associated with ) in assessing their endorsement.
Don, you’re pretty fired up this morning. I inserted the modifier “necessarily” because it’s entirely possible that some DDBA members would choose to be members even if it was a voluntary organization. I don’t know whether that’s true so I didn’t rule it out. Furthermore, the DDBA was created by members willingly joining the organization, there are charter members. You may agree or disagree with these statements, but that was my thought process when I inserted “necessarily”. The insertion was not part of some devious scheme.
“I never implied that the current political focus had caused a decline in Chamber retail membership.” Don, I’ve already stated that I accept your rebuke, that I incorrectly made an assumption. Are you going to spend the rest of the day beating me about the head with it? “…once again you have intentionally misconstrued my comments by employing the rhetorical devices of reductionism and misdirection.” Jesus! So now I’m a Machiavellian deceiver?
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
“Autonomous ? Anonymous ? Or both ? If the latter, it certainly would say something about the transparency or lack thereof of those endorsing a candidate. I am very much in favor of knowing who the individuals are (or rather what business or interest group they are associated with) in assessing their endorsement.”
I have no doubt that the PAC chair, Steve Greenfield, would be very forthright in providing this information. Indeed, I’m quite surprised David didn’t request the info during the press conference. And as David has already pointed out here, the donor list will be published weekly which exceeds the legal requirements by a long shot.
Really, any charge or insinuation of anonymous participation, hidden agendas, or subterfuge of any kind is entirely misplaced. The PAC has gone out of its way to telegraph its moves and will continue doing so. If the PAC has failed to disclose some relevant fact, it was an oversight that can quickly be corrected by a question directed to the appropriate individual.
Let me be clear, the Chamber, the PAC, and the donors take great pride in these efforts. We are cheerleaders for a sustainable community. Cheerleading quitely would hardly be effective.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
It is easy enough to endorse candidates. It is sort of an indirect way to endorse actual policies.
It will be more interesting when direct policy or community decisions have to be made, and see how the Chamber of Commerce PAC will deal with those.
For instance, would they have endorsed Target?
Lastly, Michael Bisch- I hardly think the Chamber PAC is only “cheerleading” out in the open. I’m sure there are lots of “cheerleading quitely” going on as well.
civil discourse, I can assure you that the business community has been quietly advocating and cheerleading for several years. The effort, although measured and reasoned, has been almost entirely ineffectual (as has been widely commented on in the Vanguard). Hence, the more direct, public effort. The difference in results is startling. There is little doubt that the current effort is yielding positive results that I’m confident will result in a more sustainable community. For my part, I am entirely unapologetic.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
Ok… thought I saw an article by Jon Li on the Vanguard earlier this AM re: the CC race. Now it seems to have “disappeared”… what’s the freaking deal?
I pulled it. I made an error in posting it originally. It raised some issues I thought needed discussion and debate. But upon second reflection the personal attacks were not going to let those issues be heard and in retrospect it wasn’t what I think the Vanguard should be about. So I made a mistake and I have taken steps to correct that mistake.
It’s too bad you pulled John’s piece. John has a way of putting things that irritate some people, but there are always relevant facts embedded. That was the case with his piece today as well. I found there were a number of insightful comments.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
I don’t disagree that he raises relevant points but they were going to be overshadowed by the gratuitous personal comments.
David:
THanks for pulling the Li piece. It was not worthy of the Vanguard.
As far as the downtown Chamber goes, I think it is significant that retailers are seriously under-represented and development interests are highly represented. If you look at most businesses in davis–at least most storefronts–retail is prominent. (Of course many of us have individual businesses in Davis, including me.) If you ask most people about “downtown Business” they would think retail and restaurants/bars, not financial services, though they obviously are part of the mix.
The Chamber can, of course, endorse whoever they want. But they also should expect people to ask who they represent, especially when the term “PAC” is added.
[quote]”I pulled it. I made an error in posting it originally. It raised some issues I thought needed discussion and debate. But upon second reflection the personal attacks were not going to let those issues be heard and in retrospect it wasn’t what I think the Vanguard should be about. So I made a mistake and I have taken steps to correct that mistake.”[/quote]I agree with your decision; it was the nastiest piece I’ve seen here (not counting some of the comments, of course). I’m a little torn about censorship being a good thing, but you’re right that it shouldn’t have been posted in the first place.
I do think you and Don should come to agreement on how you document changes. Most every on-line enterprise indicates that stories are corrected or updated, when comments are zapped because they violate standards, etc. Yet, the [i]Vanguard[/i] hasn’t yet accepted the appropriateness of such editor’s notes.
Don has started by cautioning folks about personal comments. Since you have no rules about this, we never know whether things have disappeared without comment. I’ve gone back to reread items which I find are not where they were before. If I know you had some dependable, consistent standards to follow, I wouldn’t wonder whether I’d imagined these things.
Time for the [i]Vanguard[/i] to make another step up in professionalism. Then, you wouldn’t be stuck with off-topic explanations like these.
We are working on “Vanguard Guiding Principles.” The roll out is a bit slower than I expected, but hopefully in a few weeks. I’m sure it addresses everything. Part of the problem is that I post and then it gets edited. Usually if substantive changes are made, we note “update” either in comments or if it is substantial in the headline. If you want to craft language, and send it to me, I can consider it.
I make an effort to put [edit] or an explanation whenever possible. But sometimes I’m in a hurry. I really am open to suggestions, and have made some changes in my style due to feedback. Contact donshor@gmail.com, and if you reveal your identity to me I guarantee I will keep it secret.
Too bad Jon Li’s op-piece is in the “bit-bucket”… I wish I could have worked with him to edit the ‘over-the-top” parts, and focus on some of the good issues he raised.
I think a reasonable solution might be to return Jon Li’s piece to him with the “personal attack” portions highlighted and inviting him to resubmit it with those portions deleted. This would give him the opportunity to edit his own piece thereby allowing him to share his policy ideas withou the personal attacks. It may be that he did not appreciate just how objectionable some of his language was on a personal level.
Dr. Wu, what the heck is the “downtown Chamber”? As for “downtown Business”, that would be the DDBA where retail and restaurant account for the most board members.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
I don’t think you should ever pull a topic-appropriate piece written by someone giving their real name unless that person asked to have it removed. Of course, there should be a line for using profanity. But as long as the writer is focused on the topic at hand, and is not using profanity, why delete it?
I think the bar should be much lower for anonymous posters, but people using their real name should be given more latitude.
Maybe some readers need to grow thicker skin.
To dmg and Don Shor: Deciding when to pull a piece for “personal attacks” is a difficult one. May I suggest the following: read the articles before you publish them, and check to see if there are personal attacks. Send back to the author for an edit, to remove any personal attacks.
As for the comment section, I know it is difficult to police this portion of the blog. Don has graciously pulled offending comments when asked, which is greatly appreciated. However, at times some repeat offenders need to be warned, and banned from the blog if they consistently level personal attacks. I recognize that what constitutes a “personal attack” is not always easy to decipher. This is a difficult issue, and I know one the Vanguard, to its credit, continually struggles with.
I, for one, appreciate the Vanguard’s efforts at resolving this intractable problem. It is indigenous to blogs…
Jon: I missed your piece. Could you distribute it to your email list with a note that it is the article that was taken down by David?
Anyone who’s been banned from the Chamber of Commerce as well as censored by the Vanguard must have something interesting to say. If Jon gets formally rebuked by UCD (his views on Katehi should be sufficient) then he will have hit the trifecta.