224 replies to this topic

[folsom500]

It wasnt in this thread. It was in the one about Folsom corrupt politicians

so why are we talking about it in this thread ? gotta link to the other one ? If not I will delete all the comments about this situation. If you want you can start a new thread or comment on the appropriate thread...

[supermom]

so why are we talking about it in this thread ? gotta link to the other one ? If not I will delete all the comments about this situation. If you want you can start a new thread or comment on the appropriate thread...

What? Now thats some horses---

http://www.tomatopag...=1


There ya go. the link.

All kinds of interesting dismemberment of political figures in Folsom. Suits the Halloween spirit well

[camay2327]

I do not think that is always the case. More likely the poster took down his own post since it was actually a personal email from Kerri and it is not often that personal emails should be vetted in a public forum... ( not often but that does not mean it won't happen)

That is what happened. I took it down as I didn't realized I had not received her
permission to post it.

[Stop South of 50]

That is what happened. I took it down as I didn't realized I had not received her
permission to post it.

If it was from her city email account, you don't need permission. It is considered a public document.

[Robert Giacometti]

That is what happened. I took it down as I didn't realized I had not received her
permission to post it.

I can understand why you took it down, but I really appreciated her response. I thought she was timely and shared her thoughts in her response and most importantly she was right!

IMO, there was nothing she said she needs to retract. She read the ordinance the same as the rest of us. She knows what he is doing is wrong, but as the mayor it puts her & the City in a compromising situation, because the same backers that keep Jeff in power, support her as well.

If anyone disagreed with her intrepretaion then they could simply have a public discussion about it.

Kerri was right about Starsky exceeding the square footage with his signs and I appreciated her saying so!

[camay2327]

I can understand why you took it down, but I really appreciated her response. I thought she was timely and shared her thoughts in her response and most importantly she was right!

IMO, there was nothing she said she needs to retract. She read the ordinance the same as the rest of us. She knows what he is doing is wrong, but as the mayor it puts her & the City in a compromising situation, because the same backers that keep Jeff in power, support her as well.

If anyone disagreed with her intrepretaion then they could simply have a public discussion about it.

Kerri was right about Starsky exceeding the square footage with his signs and I appreciated her saying so!

Robert, I agree 100 %.

[supermom]

If it was from her city email account, you don't need permission. It is considered a public document.

You don't need permission, anyway. Once she sends it away; it is no longer private, as the other person has been "gifted" the exchange, and it is in their possession and in their control.

Never expect an email to be any more private than the possessor of a written letter, or document.

Unless that letter or document was hacked, it is not private if the recipient chooses to share it, and the sender has not encrypted it.

[ducky]

You don't need permission, anyway. Once she sends it away; it is no longer private, as the other person has been "gifted" the exchange, and it is in their possession and in their control.

Never expect an email to be any more private than the possessor of a written letter, or document.

Unless that letter or document was hacked, it is not private if the recipient chooses to share it, and the sender has not encrypted it.

While all that may be technically true, I would never share a PM from someone here unless I was given permission and I would extend that to emails. I just don't think it's cool. If someone says, "Between you, me, and the gatepost," that's where it stays. Remember Connie Chung?

[Robert Giacometti]

While all that may be technically true, I would never share a PM from someone here unless I was given permission and I would extend that to emails. I just don't think it's cool. If someone says, "Between you, me, and the gatepost," that's where it stays. Remember Connie Chung?

As an elected official, one should assume that responding to an inquiry over an issue regarding political signs could very well be shared.

There is history of others posting/sharing of elected officials emails when its done in a way to share information.

IMO, Kerri didn't say anything inappropriately and Calvin wsn't trying to sabotage her in anyway with him posting her response.

What her post did reveal is that there is clearly some questionable things happening within our City Hall and that there is a majority on the council that WON'T do anything about this. Its rather obvious to know where Starsky stands on this and Kerri shared her thoughts.

Regardless who we support like or dislike on the council, this issue is creating a very bad stench out of City Hall. If they( City Hall) can't offer an official explanation regarding this issue, how can we ever believe them with anything they ever tell us? The credibility coming out of City Hall is at an alltime low and I don't foresee it getting any better.

[supermom]

The credibility coming out of City Hall is at an alltime low and I don't foresee it getting any better.

That kind of postulation is disturbing. Aren't you supposed to say that after the results of the election have been published?

[ducky]

As an elected official, one should assume that responding to an inquiry over an issue regarding political signs could very well be shared.

There is history of others posting/sharing of elected officials emails when its done in a way to share information.

IMO, Kerri didn't say anything inappropriately and Calvin wsn't trying to sabotage her in anyway with him posting her response.

What her post did reveal is that there is clearly some questionable things happening within our City Hall and that there is a majority on the council that WON'T do anything about this. Its rather obvious to know where Starsky stands on this and Kerri shared her thoughts.

Regardless who we support like or dislike on the council, this issue is creating a very bad stench out of City Hall. If they( City Hall) can't offer an official explanation regarding this issue, how can we ever believe them with anything they ever tell us? The credibility coming out of City Hall is at an alltime low and I don't foresee it getting any better.

Robert, I don't think camay did anything wrong by posting the email, but I also don't think he did anything wrong by deleting it if he was requested to do so and thought it was common courtesy to honor that request.

I do think that the city needs to clarify the FMC on campaign signs and maybe add specific "campaign sign" wording to Section 13 and subsections a and b so no one gets confused in future elections about campaign sign size limitations. I'd really be more interested in the city attorney's interpretation than a council member's.

[Robert Giacometti]

Robert, I don't think camay did anything wrong by posting the email, but I also don't think he did anything wrong by deleting it if he was requested to do so and thought it was common courtesy to honor that request.

I do think that the city needs to clarify the FMC on campaign signs and maybe add specific "campaign sign" wording to Section 13 and subsections a and b so no one gets confused in future elections about campaign sign size limitations. I'd really be more interested in the city attorney's interpretation than a council member's.

I agree with you, except I think the ordinance is clear and its an incumbant City council person who is playing games to their advantage in this election.

This is reflective of who they are as a person!

[Robert Giacometti]

That kind of postulation is disturbing. Aren't you supposed to say that after the results of the election have been published?

There is a small probablity that Starsky will get replaced on the council. ( Starsky is spending 25 times the amount of money and has the support of the in crowd). Even if Starsky gets replaced, then there are the remaining council members who AREN'T making the CM offer a public explanation about this.

All this would take would be for ONE of the existing City Council members to make a public statement asking for clarification to force this issue out and be explained to the Residents. Since NONE of them are doing this, I don't have a lot of faith going forward that things are going to change.

IMO, Starsky is violating the ordinance and the rest of them are guilty of collaboration with him, by NOT publically asking for clarification.

Its been said that there is an unwritten agreement amongst the council members to NOT challenge any existing Council member when they are up for reelection.....I think the lack of action regarding this issue validates that claim.

[ducky]

There is a small probablity that Starsky will get replaced on the council. ( Starsky is spending 25 times the amount of money and has the support of the in crowd). Even if Starsky gets replaced, then there are the remaining council members who AREN'T making the CM offer a public explanation about this.

All this would take would be for ONE of the existing City Council members to make a public statement asking for clarification to force this issue out and be explained to the Residents. Since NONE of them are doing this, I don't have a lot of faith going forward that things are going to change.

IMO, Starsky is violating the ordinance and the rest of them are guilty of collaboration with him, by NOT publically asking for clarification.

Its been said that there is an unwritten agreement amongst the council members to NOT challenge any existing Council member when they are up for reelection.....I think the lack of action regarding this issue validates that claim.

Actually, Robert, it's not an unwritten agreement. It's part of Section 2[C].

[Robert Giacometti]

Actually, Robert, it's not an unwritten agreement. It's part of Section 2[C].

HA! Very good!