Montara Fog publisher demands an apology from MCTV director


Posted by
Tue, February 3, 2009


Darin Boville, who publishes Montara Fog, is demanding a public apology from Mike Day, MCTV director and attorney. Day publicly accused Sewer Authority Midcoastside director Scott Boyd of helping Boville with a proposal to record the SAM board meetings.  Boville says Day’s accusation is "as false and insulting as it is reckless".


Comment 1
Wed, February 4, 2009 12:24am
Ken Johnson
All my comments

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?

<u>_Darin,__There you go - repeating some mantra of “secret meetings” - can you prove this?__Kathryn.</u>

Ken Johnson

>>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?<<

Hey Ken,

You need to catch up. I published my assertions and offered substantiation in a long op-ed in the HMB Review a few weeks back. The facts presented in that op-ed were from reporting by the Review. Their source? One of the participants of the secret meeting!

But nice try on changing the topic. :)

—Darin

Comment 3
Wed, February 4, 2009 11:24am
Barry Parr
All my comments

Darin’s op-ed can be found here:

<http://www.hmbreview.com/articles/2009/01/21/opinion/editorials/doc4977728b30120903331708.txt>

Comment 4
Wed, February 11, 2009 1:00am
Ken Johnson
All my comments

The link explains why Darin’s proposal received NO support from ANY SAM Board Member! He should have gotten help from someone who understood marketing and sales.

A sad piece of Propaganda, published on 21Jan09, by Darin in the Review. Joseph Goebles would be so proud.

The continued, knowing, misuse and disregard of a legal term’s true and real meaning and truth expressed clearly by the words, “conflict-of-interest laws”, is reprehensible! The repeated use by Darin was attempting to leave the reader with the misinformation that the Law had been broken by MCC members!

Darin first misused the term “conflict-of-interest laws”, as far as I can tell, on 12Jan09
https://coastsider.com/index.php/site/news/3180/#6665
and Darin was corrected in an half an hour followed by a half a dozen different people going into painful detail on that and other threads - it looked like an ‘intervention of friends saying let go of the lie Darin’!

To compound matters of false charges, Darin wrote: “Each MCC member met one-at-a-time with this outside author to discuss and review the draft - this one-at-a-time process was an admitted attempt to circumvent open government laws such as the Brown Act, which makes meeting in secret a crime.”

That is like accusing someone who is driving at 55 mph in a 55 mph speed zone as an “admitted attempt to circumvent speeding laws violation “!

In both cases, a rational individual would call it an effort to comply with the law!

Apparently Chief Deputy County Counsel Penney Bennett agrees with me.
Here is what the Review wrote (15Oct08) :
“Chief Deputy County Counsel Penney Bennett is on the case but has no conclusions to report as of Tuesday.
Gordon’s request, Bennett said, was “that we get information concerning quorum requirements and compliance with the Brown Act. I shouldn’t think it would take too long.”
The Review doesn’t report when there are no charges!

Darin wrote: “it is only one of several examples that I have witnessed first-hand at the MCC meetings in the past year” - yet unsupported. Sort of sounds like Darin is channeling the highly discredited Senator Joseph McCarthy

My point, why would any SAM Board member support a proposal from someone who can not accept a rational rejection of their argument. Would you want to pay someone like Darin to be at each of your public meetings?

One thing all SAM Board members have in common - they filled a Conflict of Interest forms package. All of them can read or know someone who can.  They all know that Darin’s assertions are false. None of them supported Darin’s proposal - who would want to execute a contract with someone who can’t accept reality! Could they ever expect Darin to perform to a contract terms if Darin simply can’t accept the clear meaning of even the best of well defined terms?

Darin posted on his site, “I demand an apology, and a public one, reaching the same audience on Channel 6 that watched the original reckless slander”, referenced in this article, is as laughable as it is tragic.

I do love good irony. Darin falsely accuses MCC members of violating Conflict of Interest Laws and the Brown Act. Then Darin whines over Mr. Dey’s comments. Maybe there is justice!

Darin’s site, Montara Fog, is aptly named, but not for the weather but for a state of mind.

Ken Johnson

Comment 5
Wed, February 11, 2009 7:33am
Barry Parr
All my comments

Goebbels? Really?

From the legendary Wikipedia:


[Godwin’s Law][1] (also known as
Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1] is
an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in
1990. The law states: “As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the
probability of a comparison involving
Nazis or Hitler approaches one.”[2][3]

Godwin’s Law is often cited in online
discussions as a deterrent against the
use of arguments in the reductio ad
Hitlerum form.

I’m glad I looked it up. I’d never heard the expression *reductio ad Hitlerum* until today.

  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_Law

Comment 6
Wed, February 11, 2009 4:42pm
Ken Johnson
All my comments

Barry,

Godwin’s law: Corollaries and usage: “It does not apply to discussions directly addressing genocide, propaganda, or other mainstays of the Nazi regime.”

Paul Joseph Goebbels: Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda in Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945.

been on ‘net’ before most people had heard of it,
Ken Johnson

Brown Act requirements cannot be circumvented by meeting serially; the Brown Act calls this a “serial meeting” and it is just as illegal as meeting together outside of a noticed public meeting.  And by the way, if the council members had thought they were doing anything wrong, why did they do it in a very publicly visible venue?

The issue here is that Darin and Neil refuse to recognize that a quorum of the Midcoast Community Council is 4 members (check the [MCC bylaws][1] and the [Brown Act][2]), even though at the time there were 2 vacancies on the 7 member Council.  Therefore, even though 3 of the 5 sitting members may have assisted in drafting the letter, there was no Brown Act violation because it was not a quorum of the Council, as quorum is defined.  If am I wrong in this statement, don’t you think that we would have heard from County Counsel by now?

But as previously mentioned, Darin has explicitly stated that he’s not interested in the letter of the law, but wants to use his own casual definition.  Sorry, we work by the letter of the law.

(Oh, and Ken, I was on the net more than a decade before it was called “the Internet”.  Remember the 1970s Arpanet?  In fact, I was on the Arpanet years before tcp/ip was invented.  I’m not clear on what this has to do with the discussion topic.)

Since Goebbels has been mentioned, I have to remind people of his philosophy, which is used a lot by certain pro-maximum-growth people on the Coastside:

“The bigger the lie, the louder and more frequently you must repeat it.”
or maybe this version:
“The bigger the lie the more easily it is accepted.”
or maybe this one:
“The rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious. In the long run
only he will achieve basic results in influencing public opinion who is able to reduce problems to the simplest terms and who has the courage to keep forever repeating them in this simplified form despite the objections of intellectuals.”


  [1]: http://mcc.sanmateo.org/bylaws.php
  [2]: http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=54001-55000&file=54950-54963

Nice job by Ken Johnson of hijacking this thread, and actually NOT blaming something on CUSD for once. **But why not end this debate by listing, specifically, who met, in what order, and detail how the letter was drafted and distributed?**  Or if our elected officials don’t want their constituents to know, they can keep arguing and it’ll be clear their call for “transparency” is a sham. -Joel