A November 1, 2006 advertisement in the Davis Enterprise suggested that the EPA was in support of Measure K. The EPA spokesperson wrote a letter to the editor that appeared in the Davis Enterprise, clarifying that the EPA had not taken a position on the Target Development.
The text quoted in the advertisement was verbatim from the emails exchanged between the EPA’s Project Manager and Councilmember Don Saylor. However, those quotes were juxtaposed with other material to suggest that the EPA had in fact supported the measure. This is a clear attempt to change the meaning of the information that the EPA provided to Councilmember Saylor.
Saylor completely twisted the words of the EPA to suggest to the public that the EPA was supporting this project. This is a gross attempt by Saylor to manipulate the public into supporting the Target project and Measure K.
Kathleen Johnson, Chief of Federal Facilities and Site Cleanup Branch, Superfund Division wrote a letter to members of the City Council, the newspapers, and the two campaigns dispelling the notion that EPA was taking a stand. The People’s Vanguard of Davis has acquired a copy of this public document.
The letter says:
EPA is writing this letter to make very clear that EPA takes no position regarding the proposed Target development, currently up for a community vote as Measure K on the November 7, 2006 Davis ballot.
Unfortunately, a November 1, 2006 advertisement in the Davis Enterprise, could be read to suggest that EPA is taking a position on Measure K. In response to an email from Councilmember Saylor, EPA answered questions regarding our Superfund cleanup and potential impacts to the redevelopment in two emails, dated October 26 and November 1, 2006. As a public agency, we responded to the request and provided the information regarding the Site. Although the text quoted in the advertisement was taken verbatim from emails between EPA’s Project Manager and Councilmember Saylor, it was juxtaposed with unquoted headings and paraphrased materials that arguably change the import of EPA’s words.
The EPA had a dialogue with Councilmember Saylor answering questions about their Superfund cleanup and potential impacts to the redevelopment in two emails.
Don Saylor was the only one who had access to those emails. Thus it is clear that Saylor took the words of the EPA and twisted them to meet his needs and put them into an advertisement that would appear in the Davis Enterprise to try to convince the voters that the EPA approved of the Target project.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
This kind of stuff from Councilman Saylor is SOP(standard operating procedure). I would hope that Mayor Greenwald adds a topic to our council’s upcoming workshop agenda that deals with standards of ethical behavoir for our council representatives.Souza and Saylor have been caught red-handed putting out misinformation in the Covell Village referendum, their “labor negotiations” with Target, inflating the Target revenue (already inflated by the city’s reprort) to $1,000,000 and now this EPA issue.
Flash:On Thursday, 11/23, the UCD Student Senate refused to endorse a resolution to supporting Yes on Measure K(Target).
This kind of stuff from Councilman Saylor is SOP(standard operating procedure). I would hope that Mayor Greenwald adds a topic to our council’s upcoming workshop agenda that deals with standards of ethical behavoir for our council representatives.Souza and Saylor have been caught red-handed putting out misinformation in the Covell Village referendum, their “labor negotiations” with Target, inflating the Target revenue (already inflated by the city’s reprort) to $1,000,000 and now this EPA issue.
Flash:On Thursday, 11/23, the UCD Student Senate refused to endorse a resolution to supporting Yes on Measure K(Target).
This kind of stuff from Councilman Saylor is SOP(standard operating procedure). I would hope that Mayor Greenwald adds a topic to our council’s upcoming workshop agenda that deals with standards of ethical behavoir for our council representatives.Souza and Saylor have been caught red-handed putting out misinformation in the Covell Village referendum, their “labor negotiations” with Target, inflating the Target revenue (already inflated by the city’s reprort) to $1,000,000 and now this EPA issue.
Flash:On Thursday, 11/23, the UCD Student Senate refused to endorse a resolution to supporting Yes on Measure K(Target).
This kind of stuff from Councilman Saylor is SOP(standard operating procedure). I would hope that Mayor Greenwald adds a topic to our council’s upcoming workshop agenda that deals with standards of ethical behavoir for our council representatives.Souza and Saylor have been caught red-handed putting out misinformation in the Covell Village referendum, their “labor negotiations” with Target, inflating the Target revenue (already inflated by the city’s reprort) to $1,000,000 and now this EPA issue.
Flash:On Thursday, 11/23, the UCD Student Senate refused to endorse a resolution to supporting Yes on Measure K(Target).
After reading St.John’s article in today’s Enterprise,EPA Unhappy With Ads On Target Issue, I feel obliged to make two further observations.
2nd paragraph on FRONT page: “Campaigns BOTH in favor and against Measure K….(text describing Measure K)……..have been accused of embellishing quotes by the EPA and making ads appear to be submitted by the EPA…” The article clearly covers the malfeasance of Don Saylor and the Yes on Measure K ad as described in the EPA’s letter but where did the claim come form that No on K was embellishing EPA quotes and misrepresenting its ads as coming from the EPA? Answer.. nowhere to be found, not even from Mr. Zeigler, the Target PR man, who only claimed that No on K was making inaccurate claims. On page 6 , we are offered the disclaiming explanation by Pam Neiberg that No on K never represented its statments as coming from the EPA but rather were their own interpretation of the facts.
The second point has to do with public breach of trust, one of the most serious issues for an elected official. Don Saylor( and Steve Souza in other incidents) have used the authority of their office to misrepresent facts to those who elected them into office. The emails were to Don Saylor and he must have worked with the professional Target PR people, masquarading as a grassroots CARES group, in the preparation of this deceptive ad. This carries a fundamentally a different significance than campaign ad misstatements(Note: not substantiated against No on K in this instance) made by unprofessional, citizen ad writers.
After reading St.John’s article in today’s Enterprise,EPA Unhappy With Ads On Target Issue, I feel obliged to make two further observations.
2nd paragraph on FRONT page: “Campaigns BOTH in favor and against Measure K….(text describing Measure K)……..have been accused of embellishing quotes by the EPA and making ads appear to be submitted by the EPA…” The article clearly covers the malfeasance of Don Saylor and the Yes on Measure K ad as described in the EPA’s letter but where did the claim come form that No on K was embellishing EPA quotes and misrepresenting its ads as coming from the EPA? Answer.. nowhere to be found, not even from Mr. Zeigler, the Target PR man, who only claimed that No on K was making inaccurate claims. On page 6 , we are offered the disclaiming explanation by Pam Neiberg that No on K never represented its statments as coming from the EPA but rather were their own interpretation of the facts.
The second point has to do with public breach of trust, one of the most serious issues for an elected official. Don Saylor( and Steve Souza in other incidents) have used the authority of their office to misrepresent facts to those who elected them into office. The emails were to Don Saylor and he must have worked with the professional Target PR people, masquarading as a grassroots CARES group, in the preparation of this deceptive ad. This carries a fundamentally a different significance than campaign ad misstatements(Note: not substantiated against No on K in this instance) made by unprofessional, citizen ad writers.
After reading St.John’s article in today’s Enterprise,EPA Unhappy With Ads On Target Issue, I feel obliged to make two further observations.
2nd paragraph on FRONT page: “Campaigns BOTH in favor and against Measure K….(text describing Measure K)……..have been accused of embellishing quotes by the EPA and making ads appear to be submitted by the EPA…” The article clearly covers the malfeasance of Don Saylor and the Yes on Measure K ad as described in the EPA’s letter but where did the claim come form that No on K was embellishing EPA quotes and misrepresenting its ads as coming from the EPA? Answer.. nowhere to be found, not even from Mr. Zeigler, the Target PR man, who only claimed that No on K was making inaccurate claims. On page 6 , we are offered the disclaiming explanation by Pam Neiberg that No on K never represented its statments as coming from the EPA but rather were their own interpretation of the facts.
The second point has to do with public breach of trust, one of the most serious issues for an elected official. Don Saylor( and Steve Souza in other incidents) have used the authority of their office to misrepresent facts to those who elected them into office. The emails were to Don Saylor and he must have worked with the professional Target PR people, masquarading as a grassroots CARES group, in the preparation of this deceptive ad. This carries a fundamentally a different significance than campaign ad misstatements(Note: not substantiated against No on K in this instance) made by unprofessional, citizen ad writers.
After reading St.John’s article in today’s Enterprise,EPA Unhappy With Ads On Target Issue, I feel obliged to make two further observations.
2nd paragraph on FRONT page: “Campaigns BOTH in favor and against Measure K….(text describing Measure K)……..have been accused of embellishing quotes by the EPA and making ads appear to be submitted by the EPA…” The article clearly covers the malfeasance of Don Saylor and the Yes on Measure K ad as described in the EPA’s letter but where did the claim come form that No on K was embellishing EPA quotes and misrepresenting its ads as coming from the EPA? Answer.. nowhere to be found, not even from Mr. Zeigler, the Target PR man, who only claimed that No on K was making inaccurate claims. On page 6 , we are offered the disclaiming explanation by Pam Neiberg that No on K never represented its statments as coming from the EPA but rather were their own interpretation of the facts.
The second point has to do with public breach of trust, one of the most serious issues for an elected official. Don Saylor( and Steve Souza in other incidents) have used the authority of their office to misrepresent facts to those who elected them into office. The emails were to Don Saylor and he must have worked with the professional Target PR people, masquarading as a grassroots CARES group, in the preparation of this deceptive ad. This carries a fundamentally a different significance than campaign ad misstatements(Note: not substantiated against No on K in this instance) made by unprofessional, citizen ad writers.
The EPA spokesperson basically did not like this statement in the No on K ad:
“Construction of the Target store as currently planned will interfere with EPA’s clean-up activities of this site.”
“Although EPA may disagree with this statement, it is not represented as a statement by EPA, and is therefore less troublesome to us.”
They disagree with that statement, but because it was not attributed to them, they were much less concerned about it. Had Saylor not pulled his shananigans, they would not have written anything about it. It was only after the Yes on K people did that, that they included it.
Anyway, I need to clarify that there was a small beef there by EPA, but the huge bulk of their letter and complaint was focused on the Yes on K ad which they view as attributing support for Target to them.
I don’t think the level of their anger is properly reflected in the Enterprise article, she made it seem like the two were comparable–and really it’s not even close.
The EPA spokesperson basically did not like this statement in the No on K ad:
“Construction of the Target store as currently planned will interfere with EPA’s clean-up activities of this site.”
“Although EPA may disagree with this statement, it is not represented as a statement by EPA, and is therefore less troublesome to us.”
They disagree with that statement, but because it was not attributed to them, they were much less concerned about it. Had Saylor not pulled his shananigans, they would not have written anything about it. It was only after the Yes on K people did that, that they included it.
Anyway, I need to clarify that there was a small beef there by EPA, but the huge bulk of their letter and complaint was focused on the Yes on K ad which they view as attributing support for Target to them.
I don’t think the level of their anger is properly reflected in the Enterprise article, she made it seem like the two were comparable–and really it’s not even close.
The EPA spokesperson basically did not like this statement in the No on K ad:
“Construction of the Target store as currently planned will interfere with EPA’s clean-up activities of this site.”
“Although EPA may disagree with this statement, it is not represented as a statement by EPA, and is therefore less troublesome to us.”
They disagree with that statement, but because it was not attributed to them, they were much less concerned about it. Had Saylor not pulled his shananigans, they would not have written anything about it. It was only after the Yes on K people did that, that they included it.
Anyway, I need to clarify that there was a small beef there by EPA, but the huge bulk of their letter and complaint was focused on the Yes on K ad which they view as attributing support for Target to them.
I don’t think the level of their anger is properly reflected in the Enterprise article, she made it seem like the two were comparable–and really it’s not even close.
The EPA spokesperson basically did not like this statement in the No on K ad:
“Construction of the Target store as currently planned will interfere with EPA’s clean-up activities of this site.”
“Although EPA may disagree with this statement, it is not represented as a statement by EPA, and is therefore less troublesome to us.”
They disagree with that statement, but because it was not attributed to them, they were much less concerned about it. Had Saylor not pulled his shananigans, they would not have written anything about it. It was only after the Yes on K people did that, that they included it.
Anyway, I need to clarify that there was a small beef there by EPA, but the huge bulk of their letter and complaint was focused on the Yes on K ad which they view as attributing support for Target to them.
I don’t think the level of their anger is properly reflected in the Enterprise article, she made it seem like the two were comparable–and really it’s not even close.
Doug.. thanks for the clarification. Different sides of a campaign do come to different conclusions and make different ad claims. This is well-known to the EPA and is not what upset the EPA and prompted the letter from them to the Enterprise. I would guess that they mentioned their displeasure with No on K’s ad statements in the letter to try and maintain their neutral position on Measure K and , of course, this was jumped upon by the Enterprise.
By the way… great No on K video
Doug.. thanks for the clarification. Different sides of a campaign do come to different conclusions and make different ad claims. This is well-known to the EPA and is not what upset the EPA and prompted the letter from them to the Enterprise. I would guess that they mentioned their displeasure with No on K’s ad statements in the letter to try and maintain their neutral position on Measure K and , of course, this was jumped upon by the Enterprise.
By the way… great No on K video
Doug.. thanks for the clarification. Different sides of a campaign do come to different conclusions and make different ad claims. This is well-known to the EPA and is not what upset the EPA and prompted the letter from them to the Enterprise. I would guess that they mentioned their displeasure with No on K’s ad statements in the letter to try and maintain their neutral position on Measure K and , of course, this was jumped upon by the Enterprise.
By the way… great No on K video
Doug.. thanks for the clarification. Different sides of a campaign do come to different conclusions and make different ad claims. This is well-known to the EPA and is not what upset the EPA and prompted the letter from them to the Enterprise. I would guess that they mentioned their displeasure with No on K’s ad statements in the letter to try and maintain their neutral position on Measure K and , of course, this was jumped upon by the Enterprise.
By the way… great No on K video
That would be my interpretation as well–the Yes on K ad generated a lot much harsher response than the No on K ad.
This blog entry was written well before I saw this morning’s Davis Enterprise. Frankly I was surprised to see it in there. I did want to respond in brief to one of Ziegler’s comments.
“Ziegler said Yes on K felt it was important to run the ad to counter what the opposition has been saying. ‘There have been so many gross distortions from the No on K side about the site, that we thought we had to make it clear that the EPA is in fact neutral on the site.'”
Basically in an effort to set the record straight, they instead distorted the EPA position. And in fact, in a much worse manner than the No on K people ever did. Talk about hypocrisy and gross distortions. It’s just mind boggling.
That’s hardly a defense for distortion. They offer no defense really for their distortion or even an explanation as to why what they said was accurate.
We’ll see how much of this comes across in the article by St. John to the public.
That would be my interpretation as well–the Yes on K ad generated a lot much harsher response than the No on K ad.
This blog entry was written well before I saw this morning’s Davis Enterprise. Frankly I was surprised to see it in there. I did want to respond in brief to one of Ziegler’s comments.
“Ziegler said Yes on K felt it was important to run the ad to counter what the opposition has been saying. ‘There have been so many gross distortions from the No on K side about the site, that we thought we had to make it clear that the EPA is in fact neutral on the site.'”
Basically in an effort to set the record straight, they instead distorted the EPA position. And in fact, in a much worse manner than the No on K people ever did. Talk about hypocrisy and gross distortions. It’s just mind boggling.
That’s hardly a defense for distortion. They offer no defense really for their distortion or even an explanation as to why what they said was accurate.
We’ll see how much of this comes across in the article by St. John to the public.
That would be my interpretation as well–the Yes on K ad generated a lot much harsher response than the No on K ad.
This blog entry was written well before I saw this morning’s Davis Enterprise. Frankly I was surprised to see it in there. I did want to respond in brief to one of Ziegler’s comments.
“Ziegler said Yes on K felt it was important to run the ad to counter what the opposition has been saying. ‘There have been so many gross distortions from the No on K side about the site, that we thought we had to make it clear that the EPA is in fact neutral on the site.'”
Basically in an effort to set the record straight, they instead distorted the EPA position. And in fact, in a much worse manner than the No on K people ever did. Talk about hypocrisy and gross distortions. It’s just mind boggling.
That’s hardly a defense for distortion. They offer no defense really for their distortion or even an explanation as to why what they said was accurate.
We’ll see how much of this comes across in the article by St. John to the public.
That would be my interpretation as well–the Yes on K ad generated a lot much harsher response than the No on K ad.
This blog entry was written well before I saw this morning’s Davis Enterprise. Frankly I was surprised to see it in there. I did want to respond in brief to one of Ziegler’s comments.
“Ziegler said Yes on K felt it was important to run the ad to counter what the opposition has been saying. ‘There have been so many gross distortions from the No on K side about the site, that we thought we had to make it clear that the EPA is in fact neutral on the site.'”
Basically in an effort to set the record straight, they instead distorted the EPA position. And in fact, in a much worse manner than the No on K people ever did. Talk about hypocrisy and gross distortions. It’s just mind boggling.
That’s hardly a defense for distortion. They offer no defense really for their distortion or even an explanation as to why what they said was accurate.
We’ll see how much of this comes across in the article by St. John to the public.
Doug… forgive me but the term
“shannaigans” for Don Saylor’s behavoir is a hot button for me. Debbie Davis , in her editorial piece on the Sunday before Nov. 7th 2005, also referred to the attempted bribery of UCD students with pizza by the Yes on Measure X campaign as “shannigans”. In that case, it was not shannigans but a violation of federal election law. Councilman Saylor’s involvement with this deceptive YES ON K ad is anything but shannanigans. It is a cynical and calculated attempt to deceive the voters.
Doug… forgive me but the term
“shannaigans” for Don Saylor’s behavoir is a hot button for me. Debbie Davis , in her editorial piece on the Sunday before Nov. 7th 2005, also referred to the attempted bribery of UCD students with pizza by the Yes on Measure X campaign as “shannigans”. In that case, it was not shannigans but a violation of federal election law. Councilman Saylor’s involvement with this deceptive YES ON K ad is anything but shannanigans. It is a cynical and calculated attempt to deceive the voters.
Doug… forgive me but the term
“shannaigans” for Don Saylor’s behavoir is a hot button for me. Debbie Davis , in her editorial piece on the Sunday before Nov. 7th 2005, also referred to the attempted bribery of UCD students with pizza by the Yes on Measure X campaign as “shannigans”. In that case, it was not shannigans but a violation of federal election law. Councilman Saylor’s involvement with this deceptive YES ON K ad is anything but shannanigans. It is a cynical and calculated attempt to deceive the voters.
Doug… forgive me but the term
“shannaigans” for Don Saylor’s behavoir is a hot button for me. Debbie Davis , in her editorial piece on the Sunday before Nov. 7th 2005, also referred to the attempted bribery of UCD students with pizza by the Yes on Measure X campaign as “shannigans”. In that case, it was not shannigans but a violation of federal election law. Councilman Saylor’s involvement with this deceptive YES ON K ad is anything but shannanigans. It is a cynical and calculated attempt to deceive the voters.
Davisite: Precision of language is very important.
However, I looked up the definition of shenanigans, and found this:
1. questionable act: something that is deceitful, underhanded, or otherwise questionable
That would seem to fit as I see it.
You’re probably thinking of the alternative definition:
2. trick or prank: a playful trick, mischievous prank, or other display of high spirits
This is from MSN Encarta.
Davisite: Precision of language is very important.
However, I looked up the definition of shenanigans, and found this:
1. questionable act: something that is deceitful, underhanded, or otherwise questionable
That would seem to fit as I see it.
You’re probably thinking of the alternative definition:
2. trick or prank: a playful trick, mischievous prank, or other display of high spirits
This is from MSN Encarta.
Davisite: Precision of language is very important.
However, I looked up the definition of shenanigans, and found this:
1. questionable act: something that is deceitful, underhanded, or otherwise questionable
That would seem to fit as I see it.
You’re probably thinking of the alternative definition:
2. trick or prank: a playful trick, mischievous prank, or other display of high spirits
This is from MSN Encarta.
Davisite: Precision of language is very important.
However, I looked up the definition of shenanigans, and found this:
1. questionable act: something that is deceitful, underhanded, or otherwise questionable
That would seem to fit as I see it.
You’re probably thinking of the alternative definition:
2. trick or prank: a playful trick, mischievous prank, or other display of high spirits
This is from MSN Encarta.
Thanks Doug.. going to bed tonight having learned two more things.. how to spell shenanigans and that it has two meanings..although I still think that common usage has it as a prank.
Thanks Doug.. going to bed tonight having learned two more things.. how to spell shenanigans and that it has two meanings..although I still think that common usage has it as a prank.
Thanks Doug.. going to bed tonight having learned two more things.. how to spell shenanigans and that it has two meanings..although I still think that common usage has it as a prank.
Thanks Doug.. going to bed tonight having learned two more things.. how to spell shenanigans and that it has two meanings..although I still think that common usage has it as a prank.