Blogging Bayport Alameda

November 10, 2014

I have an opinion

Filed under: Alameda, Election — Tags: — Lauren Do @ 6:00 am

On Friday I was reading the comments section on another Alameda site and on it the host indicated in the comments section that there was a question on whether — if Trish Spencer wins the Mayor’s race — she would be required to resign from her School Board seat.  The definitive answer was not given as to whether or not she would have to, just this vague reference to “questions.

This came up in the comments section previously and a commenter cut and pasted a blurb from the FPPC wesbite that says there are no explicit laws that prevent someone from holding two public positions simultaneously.  But, of course, we all know that there is always a loaded “but…” following such a vague general statement.  And further down the FPPC noted that there was the doctrine of incompatible offices, but that they didn’t have anything to do with that determination, so go ask the Attorney General’s office.

As a result someone did ask Trish Spencer explicitly and the commenter dutifully reported back that she nodded affirmatively that she would resign from the School Board if elected as Mayor.  So I’m not sure why this vagueness about whether she would or would not be required to resign.

So rather than continue to speculate, I searched on the Attorney General’s website for the information.

And, I have your definitive answer just in case anyone was wondering.   While I couldn’t track back the original opinion by the Attorney General in 1982 this opinion from 2010 did have the answer in the analysis portion.   The question that they were tackling was whether it was incompatible to hold the office of elected City Clerk and School Board at the same time.  That answer, by the way, is no.

The answer  for City Council and School Board incompatibility is: yes.

From the opinion:

In contrast, in 1982 we were asked whether the offices of city council member and school district trustee were incompatible when the city and the school district had territory in common. 20 We concluded that they were. We noted that clashes might arise from various situations in which a school board and a city council may engage in relationships or contracts with each other, such as arrangements for child care centers, community recreation, health supervision, library facilities, sewage facilities, or the sale or lease of real property. 21 In addition, we observed that either public body may condemn property of the other in eminent domain proceedings where a superior use could be shown; that school districts can dedicate real property to cities for certain public purposes; that, in the establishment of a city master plan, the city may chart the location of future schools; and that city officials are charged with enforcement of health and safety regulations within the schools.

So that settles the question, yes?  Without needing a listing of all the contracts and relationships between the City and School District which would make holding two positions on each board incompatible, right?

Advertisements

50 Comments

  1. Congratulations Trish- our first Hispanic mayor. When will Gilmore publicly concede? Will she be gracious like Oakland’s Mayor Jean Quan, taking her opponent’s hand at a joint press conference? Or will the unions bitterly ask for a recount? Who will pay the exorbitant cost? Who just resigned? And please don’t start lobbying for the played out McMahon to take the vacant school board seat.

    Comment by Breathless — November 10, 2014 @ 6:36 am

  2. 1: The vote count is incomplete and the race is extremely close, so any concession or victory speech would be premature. Both candidates have been wise to hold off on these.

    I believe it is best in very close races like this to wait for the final tally, which should come this week. (The gap has been as small as 0.3% over the week.)

    Bitterness is not the only reason to request a recount. A recount in a race this close could reverse the outcome–in either direction. It may serve the best interests of all of the voters to make sure the official results are as accurate as possible. Making certain that the final official count is accurate seems to be in the next mayor’s best interests, too, since any question about the accuracy of the totals could cloud her ability to govern. (Neither candidate has received anything like a mandate, so governing will require a recognition that the voters split right down the middle on substantive issues no matter who wins.)

    I do not know why you object so strongly to Mike McMahon, who has served the voters, parents, teachers, and taxpayers of Alameda with distinction and great care for 12 years. He is one of our most capable and trustworthy public servants, whether or not you agree with his positions.

    Comment by Jon Spangler — November 10, 2014 @ 8:50 am

  3. Spot on Jon! I voted for Trish because she smiles a lot, glad you voted for her for the same substantive reason.

    Comment by jack — November 10, 2014 @ 9:11 am

  4. Mike McMahon said in an open forum while he was running, that he voted to keep the voters in the dark about Measure I not having a senior or disabled exemption; how much the property owners would be assessed and for how many years it would run. That does not make him capable OR trustworthy, IMHO. If I thought he was capable & trustworthy before, those thoughts went out the window once he described how he conspired with the rest of the school board and the hired election consultant to bury the important features of this measure in the fine print at the back of the thick General Election booklet.

    Jon, a capable & trustworthy person does not go out of his way to trick voters into voting for something he wants to pass; especially something that homeowners may not be able to pay for.

    Not everyone in Alameda is as wealthy as Lauren Do, or a renter like Spangler. The AUSD budget is balanced on the backs of property owners, although everyone gets to vote whether they rent or own. Taxes hurt. Measure I will now be the single largest line item assessment on my property tax bill. Thanks a lot, Mike. McMahon.!

    What makes Measure I especially deceptive, in my mind, is that California voters are frequently asked to approve Bond measures, which don’t hit them individually in the wallet so hard. They don’t think of bonds as taxes. This one is clearly a tax in Bond Clothing.

    Comment by vigi — November 10, 2014 @ 10:58 am

  5. I kind of hope Trish doesn’t resign from the school board because I would love to sue her out of office.

    Comment by Oh the Irony! — November 10, 2014 @ 11:01 am

  6. The election results aren’t yet all in. But the nearly final results and trends sure make it look like Trish will win by more than 100 votes. A recount seems to make more sense when the final margin is much tighter (something like 10-20 votes), but if someone wants to pay for a recount there will be a recount and then we can move on, knowing the city is very close to 50-50 on certain issues.

    If, as seems very likely, Trish does hold her lead and becomes Mayor, she will have to step down from the school board, voluntarily by doing the right thing or via the litigation mentioned in comment 5. If Neil Tam’s serious health issues, which are described in a note on the home page of the school district website, prevent him from completing the last two years of his term, the brand new school board would then have two of its five seats vacant for the remaining two years in the terms of Trish and Neil and would consist of two members who have never served on the board and one that has only been on since 2012.

    If the new board just had to fill one seat for the final two years of a term, appointing someone for that might make sense. But if they really do have to appoint to fill two out of five seats, shouldn’t they consider holding a special election, which is their other legal option for filling those vacancies? It does cost money to hold an election, but it seems important to get that right and the one time costs seem worth it as the most fair way out of unique situation involving an unusually high amount of change at the top in the school district, including Trish leaving to become Mayor.

    If, instead of holding a special election, the three people on the school board were to appoint two people, there would probably be lots of complaints that that wasn’t fair, whoever it is they pick in this town that seems divided 50-50 in a lot of ways.

    So if this is the way things all go, why not hold a special election in March to fill the two school board vacancies?

    Comment by Election Aftermath — November 10, 2014 @ 11:22 am

  7. Vigi, the market value of your home will probably go up as a result of the investment in our schools. Communities that invest in their schools attract families looking for good schools, and Alameda was rated in the top ten just recently. This investment could push our rating even higher. So the short term loss for you could turn out to be a longer term gain.

    Comment by Karen Bey — November 10, 2014 @ 11:23 am

  8. I suspect vigi doesn’t care about property values because she’ll only be moving out when she’s wearing a toe tag. Her heirs might care, but she probably doesn’t.

    And I agree with election aftermath that a special election for the school board is the way to go.

    Comment by Oh the Irony! — November 10, 2014 @ 11:29 am

  9. Vigi, your property tax bill is very easily googleable and you are badly misreading it. Your Measure I assessment will be less than $200 and will be the 5th largest item on your heavily subsidized property tax bill.

    Comment by dave — November 10, 2014 @ 11:35 am

  10. Lauren, thank you for taking the time to look up the issue

    Comment by Charles Hurt — November 10, 2014 @ 11:38 am

  11. You also display a serious ignorance about CA school funding & financing. I suggest you learn a thing or two before your next rant.

    Comment by dave — November 10, 2014 @ 11:38 am

  12. Am I the only one who looks forward (with dread) to all these debates in the next council? On one side you have Team No (Spencer & Matterese) and the other, you are likely to have Ezzy and Oddie ultimately in favor of development proposals for the Point and Northern Waterfront. I can already see Tony Daysog, seizing the limelight and playing Hamlet on every issue and nobody will be able to smack him around for it, because he is the 3rd vote on every issue and is wishy-washy enough (I mean, responsive to public input) to take advantage and try and become the power broker.

    Comment by BMac — November 10, 2014 @ 12:56 pm

  13. Where is Kate Quick to smack around BMac for his uncharitable take on Tony Daysog?

    Comment by people can be unreasonable ------- — November 10, 2014 @ 2:02 pm

  14. 12. Ultimately this “balance” may be what we need to forge a little trust in the final decisions of council and to stop the claims that the pro-development faction is steam rolling Alameda, though I expect the extreme party of NO to only be satisfied with wall to wall parks and no housing at all. I actually took to Frank to be more moderate than automatic NO like Trish. I think Tony is a good guy, but I’m not quite up on my Shakespeare. I’ve often said he wishes for everybody to know how hard he is plumbing the depth of his soul and tries to exhibit the wisdom of Solomon which sometimes comes with overly elaborate explanations from the dais.

    looking ahead to next mayor’s race, there are likely to be more than two candidates. For the umpteenth time, I think we would be better off with RCV. When I tried to share a DVD with Marie ( foisted it on her) the response was unenthusiastic, like there are other priorities. Frank was all “Gee, it’s so complicated, I don’t know. Are people ready for that?”

    Can I get an amen on RCV from anybody? a coalition to lobby for it? It was no big deal in Oakland this year, even with 15 people running for mayor and our plurality system is about as lousy as it gets, especially the more candidates who run. For races with two open seats at one time Single Transferable Vote is also more democratic. really.

    Comment by MI — November 10, 2014 @ 2:10 pm

  15. Well, I’m pretty sure “wishy-washy” is an insult Shakespeare or no. Also, did you feel listened to when Marie responded to your advocacy for RCV cause it doesn’t sound like it.

    Comment by people can be unreasonable ------- — November 10, 2014 @ 2:26 pm

  16. Hmmmm….Hamlet? . . .. . how about Fortinbras, who, according to Wikipaedia “. . . delivers the final lines that represent a hopeful future for the monarchy of Denmark and its subjects.”. . . I’m just kidding, I’m kidding! : )

    Comment by tony daysog — November 10, 2014 @ 3:15 pm

  17. I heard there’s something’s rotten in the state of Denmark too.

    Comment by jack — November 10, 2014 @ 3:23 pm

  18. @9 (dave)

    Vigi, your property tax bill is very easily googleable and you are badly misreading it. Your Measure I assessment will be less than $200 and will be the 5th largest item on your heavily subsidized property tax bill.

    What am I missing?

    http://thealamedan.org/news/election-2014-measure-i-school-bond

    Once the bonds come due, property owners will pay up to $60 per $100,000 of the assessed value of their property, which is the value listed on their property tax bills; that’s an annual maximum of $240 for a home assessed at $400,000 – the average value of a single family home in Alameda based on data provided by the Alameda County Assessor’s Office.

    Comment by alamedian — November 10, 2014 @ 3:42 pm

  19. I don’t know what you’re missing. What do you not understand?

    Comment by dave — November 10, 2014 @ 3:53 pm

  20. Dave you must be a renter, since you don’t seem to know that parcel tax bills come in the mail. Been paying them for 30 years. What’s there to Google?

    Comment by vigi — November 10, 2014 @ 4:05 pm

  21. @19. Your math that the assessment will be less than $200. Perhaps this is your specific case, but don’t see how you can generalize.

    Comment by alamedian — November 10, 2014 @ 4:12 pm

  22. Look up your bill here. You’ll see that the 1% base rate is by far the largest item, and at $60/$100,000 assessed value, your max Measure I comes in just under $200. That would make it #5. Perhaps you’ve never read these bills you’ve been paying for 30 years?

    Comment by dave — November 10, 2014 @ 4:12 pm

  23. 21

    Vigi was whining about her own Measure I assessment. I was citing her own only, and also noting that her rant was wildly inaccurate. For the record my own Measure I will be approx. $525

    Comment by dave — November 10, 2014 @ 4:18 pm

  24. here’s where to look up bill and assessment info:

    http://www.acgov.org/propertytax/

    Comment by dave — November 10, 2014 @ 4:18 pm

  25. Holy cow, this is gonna cost me about $60.00 bucks a year. I’m going to start saving for it right now.

    Comment by John P. — November 10, 2014 @ 5:53 pm

  26. I think Eugenie Thompson said it all in this weeks Sun:

    “If serious action isn’t taken —soon — Alameda residents will find themselves stuck in hour-long traffic jams when leaving the island.

    Alameda will have its moment of truth — a day when there won’t be enough money to mitigate all the traffic congestion spawned by out-of-control growth and permit parking costing homeowners over a $400 per year. Residents will only find buses that are also stuck in traffic. When that day comes, there will be no turning back. Our fragile quality of life will be gone forever.

    Plain talk is where truth resides. Yet, the city overwhelms taxpayers with reams of complex documents that stymie the average voters. Why has City Hall refused to consider how much longer it will take residents to leave the island via car or bus? Why hasn’t the city been able to explain the effects of all this growth?

    Could it be that the city council, staff and consultants don’t want the residents to know the true effects of the projects? They do mention mitigations, but those mitigations are only likely to address a tiny percentage of the traffic and parking impacts.

    How is it the Del Monte project’s traffic report states there are a) No parking problems even though the parking supply is only 1.25 cars per unit and the average car ownership is 2.2 cars per unit in Alameda as per the 2000 Census? and b) When all the developments on the island are built, conclude there will only be 19 more cars than today going through the Posey Tube during the peak morning hour by year 2035 and then concluding in no added congestion due to Del Monte and all the development projects combined on the West End?

    And it should not take someone like me with a civil engineering license to opine that the city’s idea to lower the parking supply at future development projects is simply not workable in Alameda where sufficient parking supply exist around the development sites. The new residents will park in the surrounding neighborhood streets instead. Traffic will not be reduced as the city keeps on saying with reduced parking supply. What will be reduced is the cost for not building the larger garages under the condominium complexes and greatly increasing the developers’ profits.

    The Del Monte project at 414 residential units along with all the other mega-projects planned by council is a bad idea for our island. Why all these risks with irreversible harm and without the consideration that Alameda is an island?

    Alamedans need to speak up to cap the growth at a reasonable level and require developers to supply parking comparable to actual car ownership patterns, not to the new city standards set by the wishful anti-car folks. These unproven and unsustainable standards will result in irreversible harm to our neighborhoods.

    The island and its connections to the East Bay need to work for all users, its residents and businesses, pedestrians, bicycles, cars, trucks and buses.

    Ignoring the problems and then creating nightmarish congestion and parking problems will ruin what is so great about Alameda. This has been going on continuously since the environmental document process regarding Alameda Point started, through proposed projects like Neptune Point and today with the Del Monte and other northern waterfront projects.

    Now is the time to take action. Let us move forward and use our taxpayers’ dollars to build a community we can be proud of. That I believe starts with voting for Frank Matarrese for City Council who supports a cap on residential development and for Trish Spencer for mayor who comes with a fresh approach.

    And secondly, I urge residents to speak up and let council know they must define the traffic and financial risks and challenges clearly and accurately.

    So many have tried, have volunteered many hours, provided written and oral constructive comments, but council ignores them. Sadly, I too have lost total trust in any professional report from the city.

    I urge all Alamedans to vote for Matarrese and Spencer for more government transparency, an open debate of the traffic and financial challenges and for capping development to a level that is reasonable for our island. As of now, I will not vote for the other council seat, neither candidate is concerned about the extremely risky financial and development decisions being made by current council.

    Act today. Tomorrow it will be too late.”

    Eugenie Thomson, P.E., lives in Alameda.

    Comment by Wendy — November 10, 2014 @ 7:59 pm

  27. @26. Is that our local “traffic engineer”?

    Comment by alamedian — November 10, 2014 @ 8:17 pm

  28. I love an argument demanding more space for parking cars so that a project is sustainable. Rad.

    Comment by BMac — November 10, 2014 @ 8:48 pm

  29. Election results as of 11/11/14, 1:39 am, with all provisional votes presumably counted, Trish Spencer is still winning:
    NP – Trish Spencer 10443 50.15
    NP – Marie Gilmore 10314 49.53

    Comment by Darcy Morrison — November 11, 2014 @ 1:45 am

  30. Just to update the census numbers used by Eugenie Thomson, because there are more updated numbers available than 2000. The most updated numbers from the census show the number of housing units in Alameda as 31,765. And the aggregate number of vehicles in Alameda is 23,295. Which is 1.4 cars per housing unit. But those don’t reflect occupied housing units that’s just all the housing units. The occupied housing units is 29,846 which then is 1.3 cars per housing unit citywide.

    To drill down for the Del Monte neighborhood. The census tract (4273) — I used Littlejohn Park’s address to map out the census tract — has a total number of housing units set at 2061. The aggregate number of vehicles available for census tract 4273 is 1595. This means that there is 1.3 cars per housing unit, which is consistent with the citywide numbers. But if you take only occupied housing units at 1887, then the number of cars per housing units is 1.2. So essentially the Del Monte development is providing parking that matches with the vehicle/housing unit ratio in the existing neighborhood.

    Comment by Lauren Do — November 11, 2014 @ 6:14 am

  31. That’s some crazy math right there. You got your numerators and denominators all mixed up.

    Comment by A-la-median — November 11, 2014 @ 6:34 am

  32. Oops, so I did. Sorry, it’s pre coffee math. I’ll try it again post coffee.

    Comment by Lauren Do — November 11, 2014 @ 6:37 am

  33. 15 wishy washy were not my adjectives Dr. Webster. and no I did not feel I got a hearing from anybody, as politicians across the board have ignored RCV. I’m sure Trish will change that. I’m serious actually, because the tide has turned and RCVs time has come so I’m sure Trish will be the first to pander when a constituency steps up to ask council to take another look.

    Comment by MI — November 11, 2014 @ 7:09 am

  34. Let me try that again, the numbers I had pulled initially were only the vehicles used for commuting purposes and yes I totally mucked up the math. Here are the aggregate numbers for all cars owned and not just those used for commuting purposed. Sorry for the confusion:

    Just to update the census numbers used by Eugenie Thomson, because there are more updated numbers available than 2000. The most updated numbers from the census show the number of housing units in Alameda as 31,765. And the aggregate number of vehicles in Alameda is 43,313. Which is 1.4 cars per housing unit. But those don’t reflect occupied housing units that’s just all the housing units. The occupied housing units is 29,846 which then is 1.5 cars per housing unit citywide.

    To drill down for the Del Monte neighborhood. The census tract (4273) — I used Littlejohn Park’s address to map out the census tract — has a total number of housing units set at 2061. The aggregate number of vehicles available for census tract 4273 is 3218. This means that there is 1.6 cars per housing unit, which is consistent with the citywide numbers. But if you take only occupied housing units at 1887, then the number of cars per housing units is 1.7.

    Comment by Lauren Do — November 11, 2014 @ 7:17 am

  35. With the late results at 134am in the morning one can assume that the ROV has processed all of the provisional ballots. Out of the remaining 398 votes tallied in the Mayor race, Spencer picked 2 more votes and now leads by 129. The uncertified results now stand at Spencer 10443 and Gilmore 10314.

    Comment by Mike McMahon (@MikeMcMahonAUSD) — November 11, 2014 @ 7:46 am

  36. Since it now looks like a near certainty that Trish will be Mayor, someone else will complete the remaining two years of her term on the school board.

    Any idea when the school board will discuss whether to fill her seat that through an appointment or through a special election? Would that happen as early as next week’s school board meeting or would it wait until December or even January, when things might be more settled both with the final election results and with whether Neil Tam’s health has improved sufficiently for him to be able continue to serve on the school board?

    Comment by Election Aftermath — November 11, 2014 @ 8:21 am

  37. I’m not saying there isn’t a tipping point and we won’t hit it, but as much as Eugenie may be an “expert” she also has an agenda. She was NIMBY for hire in West Berkeley flat lands fight against expansion of Berkeley Bowl. She juked numbers for them, but guess what? There is no appreciable impact to be seen. The drop off at French school in the neighborhood is bigger impact in the morning. Meanwhile, food is no taxable, but West Berkeley has a great market which it didn’t and there are still lots of jobs and tax dollars generated. During era of Pat bail campaign Eugenie also appeared in a video about tube traffic which was completely inaccurate claims of increase in trips through the tube.

    Comment by MI — November 11, 2014 @ 8:23 am

  38. Tony, you are a good sport. Whether or not you represent my point of view I give you credit for taking the abuse of public office with a good attitude. The thing about Fortinbras is that due to the length of the production he is actually left out of many of them.

    Comment by MI — November 11, 2014 @ 8:26 am

  39. I get it Mark. Marie dismissed your request to consider RCV and is a good listener. You believe that Trish will consider and likely act on it and is a panderer. Bertrand Russell you aren’t

    Comment by people can be unreasonable ------- — November 11, 2014 @ 8:36 am

  40. Awful quiet, vigi. Still busy poring over property tax math?

    Comment by dave — November 11, 2014 @ 8:48 am

  41. #36 — If the current election results hold, the new school board will have 60 days to decide whether to appoint someone to replace Trish Spencer or hold a special election. New board members will be sworn in December 9. (Board Member Spencer would stay on the school board until she is sworn in as mayor on December 16.)

    If the new board decides to appoint someone, candidates will apply for the position and hen tbe interviewed in open session.

    Comment by Susan Davis (AUSD community affairs) — November 11, 2014 @ 9:19 am

  42. Fixing a typo in that last line: “…apply for the position and then be interviewed in open session.”

    Comment by Susan Davis (AUSD community affairs) — November 11, 2014 @ 9:22 am

  43. For those of you wondering how much a special election would cost it would depend on the type of election: For special election with polling places the ROV estimates $12-15 per voter for a special election that is vote by mail only the ROV estimates the cost between $7-$9. Assuming low voter participation of 25%, or roughly 10,000 voters the cost would range for $70,000 to $150,000. http://www.acgov.org/rov/est_election_cost.htm

    Comment by Mike McMahon (@MikeMcMahonAUSD) — November 11, 2014 @ 10:01 am

  44. 39. Bertrand Russel I’m not but an asshole you are. It’s one thing to make valid point anonymously, and another to persist as a snarky troll. The playing field is uneven. Frank didn’t want anything to do with RCV either. No politicians in Alameda have. I can’t recall approaching Lena, but can’t recall why. I expect Trish may respond because a) as I said the time for RCV may have come AND b) I happen to know somebody who has her ear and was counting ballots at the court house with her has had a history as a proponent of RCV. I approached Marie when she was on Council and like I said, it was about priorities. Like with all the business council has, I can’t see spending time on this. She listened to my appeal, but didn’t want to run with it.

    Comment by MI — November 11, 2014 @ 9:26 pm

  45. Currently Trish spends 40+ hours a week as a school board trustee..more than any other….She researches everything that is decided on…and looks for ramifications of the decisions made…I encouraged her to run six years ago because we had a rubber stamp school board and needed someone to play the Devil’s advocate…Her “no” on the LGBT agenda was over the fact it didn’t include ALL children who are bullied..The same people approached me when I was President of Wood PTA, and I called them out asking why they weren’t including “Q” and “I” (questioning and intersex) in their plan. She had the experience of being bullied for being Latina when she was young, and wanted the protection for ALL kids…I’m certain she will put even more hours into serving the citizens of Alameda and the use of Dialectic process will give us better, long term development and conservation plans…

    Comment by Jasmine Tokuda — November 11, 2014 @ 9:41 pm

  46. On a separate issue, after the last Mayoral election, I looked up donations to the candidates on the City council and noticed a large campaign donation from John Russo’s campaign fund…Also to Tam and Bonta’s campaigns….When they announced his name as a finalist, I knew the fix was in…Quid pro quo just rubs me wrong, our city is not for sale to the highest bidder!… http://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archives/2011/02/25/russo-donated-heavily-to-alameda-politicians ….So now I’m taking bets as to how soon Russo will announce he’s taken a job elsewhere….

    Comment by Jasmine Tokuda — November 11, 2014 @ 9:50 pm

  47. @46 well, Russo left oakland allegedly because he couldn’t work with Jean Quan. But his Alameda CM salary & benefits are extraordinary, and for less headaches. Why would he want to leave now?

    Comment by vigi — November 11, 2014 @ 10:05 pm

  48. #45 No question that Trish puts the hours in. She’s probably the hardest working politician in Alameda. The problem is she’s a dumbass. To your specific example – Lesson 9 – my read on her behavior is she’s a right-wing homophobe who conveniently hid behind that “all protected classes” argument as a pretext to voting no. And if your interpretation were correct, I’d still consider her a dumbass; all she did by voting the way she did was get herself labeled as a homophobe and didn’t do anything to accelerate coverage for other protected classes – the district had already indicated they were working towards a fully inclusive curriculum.

    Comment by A-la-median — November 11, 2014 @ 10:32 pm

  49. Mark, you’re the one who insisted that it was impossible for you to believe that Trish was a better listener without evidence. Yet here you supply the evidence (on RCV) only to say it’s not really evidence. Also, you’re the one laughing at insults directed at others or hurling them yourself. Why wouldn’t I be anonymous when that’s the kind of discussion that’s tolerated and lauded here as long as you’re on the inside or direct your venom at the appropriate targets.

    Comment by people can be unreasonable ------- — November 11, 2014 @ 11:18 pm

  50. 49. bullshit. at times I am an unrepentant asshole, but I’m also more or less accountable because I own it. I’m “a real boy”. When I flame people I wear the singed results. Don’t use my abuse as an excuse to hide behind anonymity which you troll people with your “you people can be so unreasonable” . If I was invested in obfuscation I would not have been so honest about my exchanges with Marie, yet you still can’t really give convincing evidence that Trish “listens” aside from your subjective bias.

    Comment by MI — November 18, 2014 @ 5:35 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.