Your continuous complaining about the Weekly and its coverage and its supposed bias and Gennady and a host of other things leads one to wonder why you read the Weekly or Town Square. If you just read the fishwrap Post and whatever else you read, you would probably be much happier, and so would the rest of us. :-}

Hey Rupert- don't I have the right to complain? IMHO the weekly coverage is substandard and biased. My opinion. And what are you saying-- only those people that think the weekly is a real newspaper should be reading it. I am sure the weekly can take the criticism. And agin IMHO, the post is a much superior newspaper and also notebthatbthe other two newspapers I town do not host a website in which they ask for money from the public, to increase their profits. And who are you speaking for when you say " the rest of us". Plenty of people agree with me-- my good friend jan, my DIL, my husband the economist, many of my friends and coworkers.
Don't you consider the by invitation only meeting as being newsworthy?

Transparency does not exist in Palo Alto.

Rupert is entitled to his opinion and no harm in questioning the weekly, any other payer in town or any local politician or activist. Last thing we want is letting the weekly act as a rubber stamp.

Rupert, you were such a vicious critic of the residents who put together Measure D, now you are against Karen Holman. Hmmm. I wonder what we should deduce from that.

I'm wondering how Holman could be the only one reported to have cosy relationships with developers, just given how Council acted regarding the Arastradero Reserve land, and during the Maybell vote. What do you suppose Liz Kniss meant when she said to the rest of the Council on June 13, " I'm asking because we have more than a passing interest in this particular project". She had quite an interesting emphasis in her voice. Given how utterly disinterested they have been to help at BV, and Kniss's otherwise snobby behavior, it somehow doesn't come across as over concern for the low-income among us.

Not that I am defending Karen Holman or any incumbent, so no need to go on again, we've heard you.

I am not sure why the resident from Green Acres claims that Rupert was a "vicious" critic of Measaure D since that has nothing to do with the current discussion. Although Holman did vote for Measure D. But then the resident from Green Acres claims he is not defending Karen Holman, so what is the purpose of his posting???

My last comment should read "Holman did vote for Maybell".
[Portion removed.]

ABC- yes, my posting contains my usual criticism of Holman. So what??? Holman is a politician running for!office. She should not be immune from criticism, especially given the recent revelations concerning g her and her voting record. That aside, you miss my main point-- that there was an event dealing with the upcoming election that was news worthy yet it was not reported by the weekly.
[Portion removed.]

The Weekly does not send reporters to an event to which the Weekly was not invited and an event whose hosts do not disclose the names of those who attended the event. The Weekly can't report about an event the Weekly did not attend or an event where there is no identifiable person the Weekly can interview about the event. Maybe the Daily Post reporter went to the event without an invitation and maybe there was nobody at the event checking to see whether those who arrived had been invited.

Deep throat:

The weekly apparently knew about this event a week before it happened as they reported on it:

Web Link
"Underscoring the overlap in their positions, Holman is joining DuBois and Filseth at a private "meet the candidates" party this Wednesday. Kou, for her part, said that even without a formal "slate," she is happy to join her colleagues from the nascent watchdog group in the council race and may join them for campaign events in the future."

So,obviously they were informed about. Maybe they were invited and chose not to report on it. Maybe they were not invited at all, but it is still a news worthy event-- shouldn't the voting public know what the candidates are up to. I know the weekly likes to think of itself as determining who the public should vote for-- via their endorsements. I guess the weekly would have passed on a chance to investigate Wategate!!!!

@Rupert of henzau - Here's to Watergate!

The following is part of my comment here- Web Link It was one of Curious' threads which was locked, completely:

"...
how sad it is to watch things deteriorate, knowing that something is rotten. Who knows what we do not know? You mentioned Nixon not too long ago. If it were not for the Washington Post, he probably would be remembered in a completely different way in any history text book. Nixon, too, seemed to believe himself to have Divine Right, otherwise - how would those who organized the Watergate break-in think that no one would talk? Many knew. I think it is reasonable to assume that Watergate was not the first unethical (understatement) action - those in the know were trained (took cues?), were expected and assumed to shut up.
Here is a quote of the superintendent - sorry for repeating (I have posted in other threads), I find this one very revealing: "...As I often say, the community and staff take their cues from us in terms of how they relate to each other..." 9/2010
..."

Cheers...

My understanding is that all three papers were invited, but as a practice the Weekly does not attend campaign kick-off types of events or private campaign events.

Thanks for the update, pat. I wonder why the weekly chooses not to attend and report on this event. At least we can depend on the daily post to report the news. Take nite, deep,throat.

How dare they party at a private home and not invite pseudonymous posters? Chutzpah!

Get over it, Rupe. Or get even: throw your own party and don't invite anybody who was invited to that party.

Rupert,

Look at the upside, you won't be asked for money or to volunteer.

These adult parties are all optional, so don't worry about who was invited either.

Contrarian- what were you saying about pseudonymous posters? Go back and actually read my posting-- I was wondering why the weekly did not cover it. I was not complaining about being invited. I could not attend anyway, I was busy with my DIL.

Optional-- and your point is? As I said go back and read my original post. My friend jan was invited, but could not attend.

[Post removed.]

[Portion removed.]

You complain a lot about the Weekly, "Rupert" but they delete other people who repeat themselves. You repeat the same handful of things over and over and over, and yet they continue to let you post. Why do you suppose that is?

.

[Portion removed.]

"You complain a lot about the Weekly, "Rupert" but they delete other people who repeat themselves. You repeat the same handful of things over and over and over, and yet they continue to let you post. Why do you suppose that is?"
Please tell us why they allow me to post my comments. Just because they are repeated does not mean they are a violation of the rules. For the most parts my " repetitive postings" are in different threads.

[Portion removed.]

Hey, Rupe. How are they going to invite either of us if they don't know our real names? So you weren't invited. Get over it.

As a matter of policy, the Weekly will not cover campaign events and never has. There are three primary reasons for this policy:

1. The presence of a reporter at a campaign gathering that is intended to rally a candidate's supporters could easily be viewed as indicating symmpathy or support for that candidate.

2. Attending and reporting on such events (which are not in any way news events) generally favors incumbents or others with substantial support in the community.

3. Attending one such event without attending all of them would raise questions as to why we choose to cover and provide publicity to some candidates and not others holding similar events.

Our policy is consistent with most, if not all, other professional news organizations, except in presidential campaigns where reporters are embedded in each campaign.

The fact that the event was taking place was deemed newsworthy, however, and was reported on because of the particular group of candidates participating.

Hope that helps to clarify the Weekly's policy and reasons for it.

[Post removed.]

TSM-- thanks for the clarification. I have to disagree with point #2. This was a news event. The election, the candidates, what they say, who they associate with, their stand on local issues are all relevant. They are relevant so that the public can make informed decisions regarding the election. Or does the weekly want us to rely on their endorsements to let us know for whom to vote for? If the weekly does not cover candidate activities, how then do they decide whom to,endorse.
I am thankful that at least the Daily Post is at the forefront of covering local news.

Most candidates have a kick-off party by invitation. Someone opens their house because they are interested in introducing the candidates and giving them a chance to let their invited guests know more about what their platform is for the race. This also gives the candidates a chance to find supporters that may help with the campaign. This is not unusual. I am sure that most people would not open their house to all of Palo Alto for a party. All of the candidates have websites that can be looked at and have been up for awhile. If you go to the site and become a supporter then you will be on their mailing list for future events.

This was a kick-off event not an "invitation only candidates meeting".

Rupert,
Are you defending what you just did, claiming you know who another anonymous poster is by a few sentences, to try to then lend legitimacy to your subsequent ad hominem attack? The Weekly has been way too lenient about that kind of thing, but it's dishonest, intimidating, and trollish behavior. They appear to have moderated it this time, but not always.

As for your point, this thread just appears to be another one of your personal attacks on Karen Holman - and I say this as someone who is undecided about voting for her. The event was billed as a meet-the-candidates barbecue. Since it included Karen Holman, it was reasonable to assume that she would announce her candidacy during the BBQ. Kind of strange, as it was really billed as a meet and greet for the new candidates, it's unusual for an incumbent to be trying to ride the coattails of newcomers. Interesting also that Greg Schmid was listed as a host but wasn't there.

[Portion removed.]

As for the BBQ. Holman clams to,share many views with Dubois and filseth. Maybe they plan to serve on the council ( if they are all,elected) as a block. Though they will have to make sure that the Brown act is not violate. There is nothing personal in my comments about Holman. She s a local elected official, running for reelection. IMHO she has acted unethically .

[Post removed.]

"Maybe they plan to serve on the council ( if they are all,[sic] elected) as a block [sic]. Though they will have to make sure that the Brown act is not violate [sic].

The correct forms are no comma, "bloc," and "violated."

But let's be fair. Not withstanding minor typos and spellings, and other nitpicks, your premise is flat out wrong.

Blocs are common in politics. The Brown Act allows three members of a legislative body to meet privately.

So, what's your whine?

Rupert, you are obsessed with one candidate and you are stalking her.
Stalkers don't think they are doing anything wrong. Time to get a grip and let it go.
You do not seem to understand the electoral process. And we have heard your opinion dozens of times, it's enough. When I read a thread I no longer read your messages.

[Post removed.]

[Post removed.]

[Post removed.]

Enough-- criticizing a local politician that is a candidate for reelection is not stalking. I am expressing my opinion-- repeatedly. If that constitutes stalking, then all of the council is being stalked.
Contrarian-- yes. There are some typos. Comes with the instrument I use for posting. The brown act requires all aspects of decision making by elected bodies to be public. Yes, 3 members can meet privately, but they cannot discuss, debate or acquire information in private. Nothing wrong with bringing that up,f they plan to serve as a bloc.
Editor- why have you not removed ABCs bogus claims about me from August 3? You have deleted a number of legitimate comments relating to,it, however.

"Comes with the instrument I use for posting. "

If your instrument ain't up to the job, ... . Those "typos" change meaning.

@Rupert
The Brown Act requires for all decisions of elected bodies to be made in public. Decisions are made by majorities of the bodies agreeing on an action. The Act allows for a minority of a body to meet, discuss and debate pending items. Since our council is nine members, a maximum of four members can confer outside of the meeting. They are also allowed to acquire information independently. More information on the Act is available at, Web Link or Web Link
Our city council has certain additional rules and guidelines which discourage private meetings with third parties at certain points in the process and which require disclosures of those meetings along with along with any information not available to the other members of the council.

off topic comment:

@Rupert of henzau -
CNN will air- 'Our Nixon' tomorrow, Friday Aug 8th.

The following was copied from CNN's page -Web Link


"...
Throughout Richard Nixon’s presidency, three of his top White House aides obsessively documented their experiences with Super 8 home movie cameras. This unique and personal visual record, created by H.R. Halde­man, John Ehrlichman and Dwight Chapin, was seized by the FBI during the Watergate investigation, then filed away and forgotten for almost 40 years.
..."

40 years. Cheers...