Comments by Darin Boville
February 04, 2009
>>Isn’t this just like Darin Boville’s repeated assertion of “secret meetings” and never proving it nor offering any substantiantion and ignoring direct questions of his assertion?
February 02, 2009
I posted these links over on Talkabout and I thought people here might like to see them, too. The first is SAM's original RFP and the second is are the responses from both MCTV amd Montara Fog. SAM RFP: http://www.montarafog.com/video/2009/SAM_RFP_2008.pdf Responses: http://www.montarafog.com/video/2009/MCTV_MontraFog_RFP_Response.pdf MCTV's Michael Day, in his reckless public accusation, accused MWSD Director Scott Boyd of helping me to write my proposal. (Scott and I have both categorically denied…
January 30, 2009
>>I can only speculate on what the MCC might have to do or not do to earn the favor of the BOS
January 29, 2009
>>rolling over for the guy with the power and expecting them to do right by you doesn’t work.
January 29, 2009
>>Our District’s Supervisor represents SAMCEDA, SAMCAR, and the various “property rights” groups only.
January 26, 2009
Ken, you are starting to creep me out. Please stop tracking me online. Kathryn, I've already offered two detailed and I hope clear examples. One was the LAFCo letter (in my op-ed in the Review). The other, much less serious but I think illustrative, was the vote at the last meeting to send a letter opposing the rule change--voted on by the very people who would be directly affected. That one is in this or one of the other recent Coastsider threads. As for recusal, I suspect that if people had been…
January 25, 2009
Hey Scott, I think we are still talking past each other. First of all, I don't see the issue of GSD having a quorum at (within?) an MCC meeting a "shifting-sands next-argument-in-line." The fact that you say that tells me I'm doing a poor job of communicating my views since that issue is at the core of my point-of-view on this matter. As you know, I'm using the phrase "conflict-of-interest" by which I mean something like "one elected body having undue influence over another elected body." That is…
January 25, 2009
>>ou can only be judged to be in the
middle, when all the pro growth pole people think you are low growth and
all the low growth pole people think you are pro growth.
January 25, 2009
>>The vacant MCC
seats are replaced by members sympathetic to the Supervisors position on
the issue of growth . Neil and Darin are happy for a short while.
January 24, 2009
http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/smc/department/bos/home/0,,18644318239725296351,00.html Hey Scott, I can't seem to get that link to work--can you post again? Also, would you mind identifying which of these agencies is made up a quorum (and for all practical purposes, a working majority) of other agencies? That, of course is the situation we are looking at with MCC where we will have four out of seven members from water and sewer boards, three of them from GSD (which is a majority of GSD members and…
January 23, 2009
I always like examples--brings a discussion down to earth...but are these examples that support your point or oppose it? The first example, that of Gordon on another board, is how things *should* work--a member should recuse themselves, whether required by law or not. If that had been happening all along I'm sure we wouldn't be having this debate. The next two examples, that of LAFCo and Regional Water Quality Control Board are odd ones in that I was under the impression that you thought having people…
January 23, 2009
>>To wear such multiple hats while trying to forbid a situation with much less actual and potential conflict of duties and interest is blatant hypocrisy on the part of the supervisors, starting with Gordon.
January 23, 2009
But aren't we talking past each other? The problem seems to be the term "conflict-of-interest." Some people want to use it like a lawyer would use it--a narrow, technical term used in a fashion different than the lay use of the term. For example, a person might say that there is no "conflict-of-interest" (technical term) on the MCC because that California law doesn't apply to the MCC. Another person might point out that "conflict-of-interest" (technical term) is the wrong term since no one is accusing…
January 21, 2009
>>My challenge is still out there: what can the MCC realistically accomplish going forward?
Nobody seems to want to touch it.
January 21, 2009
>>and then Darin could help fix all the problems with the MCC that he’s so good at pointing out.
January 21, 2009
Hey Ric,
You wrote >>2. Everyone agrees there is no actual conflict involved.
January 19, 2009
Hey Barry, A few quick reactions: >>The biggest surprise at Wednesday’s meeting...was how many members of either the Montara Water and Sanitary District or the Granada Sanitary District have served on the MCC in its twenty-year history.>What did become clear as the evening wore on was that everyone in the room knew that the MCC has no power, no budget, no voice, and no staff.>The split in the room was no surprise either. The slow-growth Midcoast establishment showed up in droves in support of their…
January 14, 2009
>>Any discussion is simply a diversion.
January 13, 2009
>>The concept of “Incompatible Office” is, of course, derived from Article. I. Section. 6. Paragraph 2 of the U. S. Constitution - the legislature.
January 13, 2009
>>Darin is starting to sound more and more like Rich Gordon’s spokesperson.
Page 3 of 8 pages < 1 2 3 4 5 > Last ›
Facebook
Twitter
RSS