The mudslinging continues in this supposedly nonpartisan race. Latest case in point:
“Enlightening”? This account on Measure S from Patricia Smith sounded grossly misleading and inaccurate, despite Mary Ann Davis’s decision to post it on her Facebook page with the endorsement, “Thanks for your enlightening letter.” (And Davis works for The Union newspaper, no less!)
So I checked with Assistant Clerk Recorder/Registrar of Voters Sandy Sjoberg for some “fact checking.” (I did not speak to Diaz about this). Sandy has “23 plus years of successful experience in procedures pertaining to recording and election administration,” according to her LinkedIn profile. She answered my questions, and here’s what I learned:
- The Clerk Recorder has nothing to do with ballot language (by law), including the wording used to describe Measure S. The “misleading and inflammatory” ballot language being challenged was signed by elected officials including none other than Supervisor Ed Scofield (who happens to be endorsing Davis — in a video, no less), among others. Greg Diaz’s office had nothing to do with the ballot language that Measure S opponents objected to.
- The Clerk Recorder/Elections Office was not “dragging its feet” but is required by law to verify signatures — a time consuming process. As it turned out some signatures were not valid.
- The Measure S proponents had ample opportunities to challenge the ballot language, under what I learned are “sunshine laws,” 10-day public comment periods and other procedures, but they let those deadlines slip. (This was confirmed by dated filings). A last-minute court challenge led to the “delay” — not any action of the part of the Elections Office.
- The ballots were not “sitting in their office.” In fact, they were being printed near Fresno. And local election officials were on site to confirm that.
- Measure S lost by a wide margin but this was not Greg Diaz’s fault. The Measure S proponents should be “grinding axes” elsewhere — and holding themselves accountable for the results. And voters should be alerted to this.
(BTW, The Union flubbed its reporting on Measure S too and had to run a retraction).
This letter that Davis posted on her Facebook page and called “enlightening” is another example of the mudslinging and inaccuracies we have come to expect from our supposedly nonpartisan races. And shame on Davis for calling it “enlightening.” It is not enlightening; it is b.s. It was “liked” by one person — her husband.
Davis is a Rotarian. The Rotary four-way test is as follows: “Of the things we think, say or do
- Is it the TRUTH?
- Is it FAIR to all concerned?
- Will it build GOODWILL and BETTER FRIENDSHIPS?
- Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?”
In this case, it is none of the above.
Now that I have spent some time examining this example, I guess I also am qualified to run for Clerk Recorder. lol.
(Note: I’m happy to repeat that I gladly donated $200 to Diaz’s campaign because experience counts. The post is here.)
7 thoughts on “Davis praises grossly inaccurate letter directed at Clerk Recorder — showing inexperience”
Good reporting, Jeff.
I made a comment on Scofield’s video endorsing Davis as to her lack of qualifications and the strong learning curve if she was elected. Her husband was the only response, claiming that I had my facts wrong and the other 2 candidates were the ones without qualifications. Make Nevada County Smart Again.
Her husband also called you a “dude”! lol.
Since I posted this, Barry Pruett has also “liked” Patricia Smith’s post on MaryAnne’s Facebook page, joining her husband. That makes two partisans!
Here are some comments from Facebook:
Carol Guild: Amazing what a little fact checking can do.
Jon “Dude” Shilling: Who had the bright idea that she should run for Clerk Recorder?
Susie Cunningham Bavo: She is grossly under qualified. Her candidacy seems like a joke, but it unfortunately isn’t.
just hearing that Ed Scofield supports Mary Anne Davis’ candidacy is reason enough to vote for her opponent.
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 11:42 AM Jeff Pelline’s Sierra Foothills Report wrote:
> jeffpelline posted: “The mudslinging continues in this supposedly > nonpartisan race. Latest case in point: “Enlightening”? This account on > Measure S from Patricia Smith sounded grossly misleading and inaccurate, > despite Mary Ann Davis’s decision to post it on her Facebo” >
Greg has my vote. I highly doubt Mary Ann, Ed, or any of her supporters will change that