After being found in violation of FPPC rules during the whole Rob Bonta recall thing:
David Howard of Action Alameda news and Save our City Alameda and other assorted entities decided that he would take on the FPPC for being “biased” against the “little guy” aka him. It’s interesting though that he wrote this blog post for Save our City Alameda instead of for his own news themed blog Action Alameda.
The other day this letter was sent out to resident anti-everything David Howard, “publisher” of Action Alameda from the City of Alameda:
Before I forget, tonight is the Alameda Democratic Club endorsement meeting for the City Council, 7:00 p.m. Alameda Hospital. I’ll be taping the meeting tonight and throwing up the video on-line as soon as humanly possible if you can’t make it out to tonight’s meeting.
Normally I wouldn’t write about silly campaigns like the one spearheaded by local naysayer David Howard, but given that this non-issue is fast become an issue thanks to independent expenditure committees, it’s time for folks to say enough is enough. Particularly because the candidates themselves have agreed to run clean campaigns.
What I’m referring to is the recall petition that should be circulating as of Friday to recall Rob Bonta. Because, let’s be perfectly honest here, the point of the actual recall is not really to express discontent with Rob Bonta as Vice Mayor of Alameda, but it is really to torpedo his Assembly race which is sort of a gross misuse of the recall process, but nothing that isn’t fair game in the David Howard political playbook.
Will the recall proponents get their numbers? Doubt it. But that’s not the goal here, the goal is to punish Rob Bonta for whatever transgressions that he supposedly committed. The thing about it is that every single item proffered as proof as necessary to rid Alameda of Rob Bonta could be attributed to at least three other members of the City Council — except for the running for higher office thing — but only Rob Bonta is being targeted.
For Tuesday’s City Council meeting, Councilmember Doug deHaan has put forth a referral asking that the the City Council direct staff to:
…perform an analysis of the Campaign Financial activities of the November 2, 2010 election using the proposed Campaign Financial Reform Ordinance Proposed by the Sunshine Task Force.
And in addition to this “analysis” that they bring back the proposed Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance for a review and vote by the City Council.
While I do not disagree with the need to bring back the Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance, and honestly it should have been done after the Sunshine Ordinance was adopted, it’s unclear what purpose an “analysis of the November 2010” election serves in 2012 except to make political hay before two upcoming elections. To be honest, I’m not sure if Doug deHaan himself necessarily understands the scope of the Campaign Referral that he put forward, because after a post on David Howard’s site about this upcoming issue, where he of course, made political hay about the Firefighters once again, Doug deHaan posted this clarification:
Today, at 5:00, the Alameda Courts ruled that ballots and voter guides would be printed without an opposition statement. The ruling against Liz Williams, Barbara Thomas and David Howard’s campaign to try and have the election removed from the June 5 ballot. He also ruled against their request to require the County to include the anti-something ballot statement after they missed the official filing deadline. I’ll have more on the filing next week.
I’ll start off by saying that I hadn’t intended to write anymore about this issue other than my first post because, well, everything was pretty much said in that initial posting on the subject. However, what has spurred these other posts is less about the incident that happened, but rather the reaction — or non reaction — by our local media and by some commenters to diminish the severity of domestic violence in general. Calling it a “family problem” holds with it the implication that no one should ever mention the fact that domestic violence exists. Given the National Convention on Health and Domestic Violence is convening in San Francisco beginning today, the national attention from San Francisco Sherriff Ross Mirkarimi’s case, as well as the conflict over the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act it would seem like this conversation — even had in the abstract with this incident as the local “hook” — would be timely and appropriate. With statistics like:
Nearly one in four women in the United States reports experiencing violence by a current or former spouse or boyfriend at some point in her life.
This should be alarming to people, but time and time again when the subject of domestic violence emerges, few want to touch it because of the belief that domestic violence is a “family problem.” While individual community members have that luxury, it is incumbent on our media types to change the way we, as a society, discuss and think about domestic violence in our communities.
There seems to be this belief that there is a set of immutable laws set in stone regarding journalism and journalistic standards. There isn’t. In this age of new media, a more social approach to news gathering and news making is slowly gaining traction (see coverage of Occupy efforts and Trayvon Martin as two notable examples), attempting to fit every type of media into one tiny box is a failure to appreciate the power of social networks.
Yesterday, I wrote about the seeming inconsistencies in the Alameda Sun’s listing on its blotter on the subject of domestic violence arrests, but I think a really good example of the evolving nature of journalism and how it’s much less an exact science than an art form is Michele Ellson’s coverage of the police blotter on her old news site: the Island of Alameda.
I don’t faithfully read Police Blotters, but honestly I was interested to see how the Alameda Sun, which — while probably not a fan of a certain individual with some criminal justice problems — is definitely is sympathetic to specific, for lack of a better term, “factions” in this City that he is very closely connected to. So I checked both the paper and the online versions to see and to my surprise there was nothing there.
Nothing.
Not even a sort of throw away listing that says “hey this happened on this date at this hour in this general location.” Nothing. So I thought, well, maybe the Alameda Sun never adds domestic violence accounts to its blotter as a general rule. It’s a possibility. So I did a quick search of their site and found that not to be the case.
I have to say I’m disappointed, but not wholly surprised at some of the reaction to the news — and the decision to post the news — about the domestic violence allegations against David Howard. Let me just say that the decision to post the information did not come lightly and I know I struggled with it. But even my struggle to post about it bothers me too. Because that tells me that domestic violence, while I recognize is a crime, somehow still manages to occupy a place in our society that still makes it untouchable in some people’s eyes.
If the victim had been a stranger on the street that had similar injuries inflicted, there wouldn’t been these protestions of the issue being a family problem or a personal problem. Much like what happened to a certain individual who was running for office, it would be newsworthy. Folks wouldn’t be making excuses about it being a personal problem and I wouldn’t have hesitated to write about the issue.
The fact that the alleged assailant was David Howard made the decision to write about this — for me — more difficult as opposed to gleefully reveling in his woes. Because of the incredibly personally destructive behavior David Howard has peddled in over these past few years, anything written about him is sure to bring cries of political payback. Think John P. was the only person to receive a Christmas Eve letter from David Howard’s lawyers threatening a lawsuit? Think again. At least four other individuals received letters, my household received two sets.
Yesterday two Tweeters pointed out how crappy the websites supporting Measure C and against Measure C really are:
But what puts the anti-Measure C website over the top is the graphic that they have been using to dissuade voters from supporting Measure C. Now, I hadn’t thought about the additional meaning behind the graphic if it was removed from the context, but now it’s really all I can think of when I see the graphic and I have to say I’m a little icked out. I really hope they don’t intend on putting those on any lawn signs any time soon.
Yesterday news broke that the owner of the Action Alameda News blog and local activist, David Howard, was arrested last Friday night under suspicion of domestic violence. From the daily police activity logs (updated regularly to the City’s website):
Blogging Bayport Alameda 