
Marginally enjoyable holidays from Al's Corner đ . . . 'Tis the season to be an a-hole.
Express your inner a-hole at Al's Corner!


Marginally enjoyable holidays from Al's Corner đ . . . 'Tis the season to be an a-hole.
Express your inner a-hole at Al's Corner!

Let the complaining begin!

An Alâs Corner Special Report. Dateline Sacramento. Alan C. Miller Reporting on Alan C. Miller.
The Davis Vanguard (DV) held an event last Thursday night in Sacramento. The event honored some people for doing stuff. Entry into the event was $100 to $5000. Why? Do those contributing not realize that giving money to something perpetuates its existence?
As of last Thursday morning, there were 167 $100 tickets âavailableâ. But one shouldnât draw any conclusions as people often wait until the last minute on events. As one person did. As of 6:00pm last Thursday there were 166 $100 dollar tickets available. Not sure how many $5000 tickets were still available.
The entrance had no obvious signs of the event, though some A-frames advertised a food establishment within the becolumned ex-bank. I arrived at 5:45pm and found a spot near the A-frames across from the door where I could be seen but be out of the way of anyone who showed up. I held up my 11×17 protest sign which read, âThe Davis Vanguard Sucks Donkey Ballsâ on one side and â$100 – $5000 WHY?â on the other.
Councilman Carson Violated Two City Policies Using City Resources for Campaign Emails
By David L. Johnson and Colin Walsh
New documents obtained through a Public Records Act request reveal that City of Davis Councilman Dan Carson violated two City of Davis policies when he sent numerous campaign emails from his publicly-funded city email account concerning Measure H, a ballot measure to approve the DiSC development project.
New documents from the city also reveal that all emails Carson sent in 2022 regarding measure H appear to have been deleted from his city account.
There has been discussion on social media over the past week concerning whether I was truthful in answering a question that was asked by an audience member during a candidate forum sponsored by Yolo People Power on September 26, 2022. I was asked whether I had ever been arrested or convicted of a crime.
I responded by giving examples of police encounters I had had while driving. I also affirmed in my response that I had the experience of being arrested.
Have I ever been convicted of a crime? Yes. Do I currently have a conviction? No.
Answering this question in a way that doesnât create misunderstanding, takes more than the brief response time allowed in the forum. Moreover, I have received legal advice that I am under no obligation to disclose this prior conviction, given that it was reduced to a misdemeanor and set aside.
The events around this occurred in 1996, and resulted in charges being filed against me. The details of this incident involve my extended family and the circumstances are deeply personal and painful. The bottom line is that I followed all legally authorized processes to resolve the matter, including what was needed to obtain court orders to render the incident a misdemeanor for all purposes and obtain an expungement of my record. When I filed for a new term on the City Council and declared that I met the eligibility criteria, I did so in good faith and in accordance with the law. I have been assured by my legal counsel and the District Attorneyâs office that my response was in full compliance with the law.
In response to Alan Pryorâs statements regarding my background, I do not have a criminal conviction. I did have a prior conviction from 22 years ago. That conviction was dismissed and set aside by the Yolo County Superior Court in 2005, based on my âcontinued law-abiding lifestyle, education and involvement in family and community.â Simple fact: I do not currently have a conviction.
Seventeen years ago, my court case file should have been updated to correctly show a âdismissalâ of the charges. I learned only recently that, due to a record-keeping error, the Court website was not properly updated to show this dismissal until I notified them several days ago that the court website contained incorrect information. Contrary to Mr. Pryorâs assertion that the court website was âscrubbedâ the Court Clerkâs Office acknowledged that the website had not been properly updated. The Court Clerk then sealed the record, as required by Senate Bill 731, which took effect on July 1 of this year. No scrubbing involved, just compliance with applicable legal requirements.
I did not have any legal obligation to disclose this when I filed my papers for candidacy. At that point, I was asked if I had a felony conviction, and I did not have one. The prior conviction had by then been reduced to a misdemeanor and dismissed. You have a right to hold me to a high standard, and my sincere hope in sharing this information with you is that you will take into account my long history of commitment to our community. I sincerely hope that all of my work in the community will allow you to put this issue into the proper context.
—————–
link to Alan Pryor's previous article "Does Gloria Partidaâs Conviction for a Felony in 2000 Disallow Her from Holding an Elected Public Office in California?"
And did Gloria Partida sign a false statement and wrongfully fail to disclose the conviction as required by law in her Statement of Candidacy in 2022?
By Alan Pryor
The Alleged Felony Crimes, the Conviction, and the Sentencing
Based on official court records, Gloria Partida, current at-large Davis City Councilmember who is running for reelection in the newly created District 4 (East Davis and Wildhorse), was apparently charged in 1999 with four felony counts of âForgery, Statute 470(A)â and one felony count of âFraud to Obtain Aid, Statute 10980(C)(2)â for offenses committed in 1995 and 1996.
The following screenshot of the initial charges filed in Yolo County Superior Court was obtained from the Courtâs document retrieval system (see https://portal-cayolo.tylertech.cloud/Portal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0, using âPartida, Gloria Jeanâ to search). Note that as of the evening of 10/10/2022, the records appear to have been scrubbed from the Courtâs website although they were available earlier in the day:
The initial complaint against Ms. Partida was filed on 3/12/1999 and she was arraigned on all of the charges on 3/30/1999.
At the Preliminary Hearing on 2/2/2000, Ms. Partida entered a conditional plea of âguilty/Noloâ to the Fraud to Obtain Aid felony charge with the stipulation that no time in a State Prison would be imposed upon sentencing on the assigned date of 3/20/2000.


I was stunned to read that Bapu Vaitla, who is a candidate for Davis City Council in District 1, is considering overturning the City's phase out of glyphosate (manufactured and commonly sold as RoundUp by Monsanto) instead of improving and strengthening the City's Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program. (see Question #2 at https://newdavisite.wordpress.com/2022/09/07/part-5-candidate-responses-to-the-sierra-club-yolano-group-questionnaire-for-the-2022-davis-city-cou/#more). None of the other candidates made this audacious proposal.
Here is some background. The City decided to phase out glyphosate in 2017; finally discontinuing its use in 2020. The process involved three City citizen-advisory commissions: Natural Resources, Recreation and Parks, and Open Space & Habitat. It took over a year and a half and involved a widely attended public citizens forum, a city-wide citizen survey, many individual Commission meetings, and a 3-way joint Commission meeting. Despite considerable stonewalling from staff, who attempted to derail and water down THIS [the] citizen-based effort, the measure was finally unanimously approved by the City Council. What passed in 2017 wasnât perfect, but it was well-received by citizens. (For more details, see https://newdavisite.wordpress.com/2018/07/17/bad-process-leads-to-mediocre-decision-on-pesticide-use-in-davis-and-not-without-wasted-time-and-eff/).
Around the same time, the city forced out its popular and highly respected IPM specialist (see https://newdavisite.wordpress.com/2018/05/18/martin-guerenas-statement-city-of-davis-environmental-recognition-award-2018/). Regrettably, that position still hasnât been filled. But given the clear desire expressed by many staff to continue using non-organic pesticides over other less toxic weed management strategies, it is hard to see the ongoing long-term failure to fill the position as an unintended accident.
Instead of advocating for hiring an IPM Specialist, Vaitla thinks we should go back to glyphosate because, he says, â âwe cannot reasonably resort to mechanical weed management.â
There are several problems here. One is Vaitla offering an opinion that either ignores or is ignorant of this recent controversial history of pesticide use by the City. A second problem is his complete dismissal and disregard of the work of the public and three citizen-advisory commissions which collectively devoted many hundreds of hours of work to this effort, most of which occurred prior to Mr. Vaitla's most recent move to Davis.
A third problem is that, although Mr. Vaitla gives lip service to the Precautionary Principle, he doesnât follow it. Notably, just this past June, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected EPA's analysis for determining that glyphosate is likely not carcinogenic to people and ordered EPA to conduct "further analysis and explanation." The science is far from settled, and since there are valid reasons to think that glyphosate is a human carcinogen supported by respected international authorities and agencies, we should avoid using it especially since we have other methods at our disposal.
Vaitla's position is hasty, overlooks a long City history and the latest Court rulings, and lacks respect for the citizen and commissions-led process in Davis. And, most importantly, it fails to protect our health. This attitude generally does not bode well for the sort of Councilmember he would make.