Ron Davis / Stuart Welch Comparative Forensic Analysis

At 8:34:36 AM on Sunday April 18, 2004, a new subscriber named "Stuart Welch" appeared out of nowhere and joined the hbtalk mailing list. Stuart immediately began posting a series of argumentative messages in praise of Planning Commission Chairperson Ron Davis and criticizing other Planning Commissioners, particularly Bob Dingwall.

The circle of Huntington Beach residents consistently active in City Hall issues is fairly small and consists of the usual suspects. So it was a bit odd that "Stuart Welch" was not a name recognized as participating in community affairs.

Another hbtalk subscriber suggested to me that the postings of "Stuart Welch" were very similar in style to the way that Ron Davis writes e-mail. Hmmm... after it had been mentioned to me, I too saw a definite resemblance. I immediately began the comparative forensic analysis that follows.

Genuine Ron Davis E-mail Messages

Lots of good information can be learned from the headers of e-mail messages. Consider the headers of the following private e-mail message that Ron Davis sent to me a few weeks before the first "Stuart Welch" posting appeared:

Note the Received: header in bolded italics. Received: headers describe each mail server the message passed through between the sender and the recipient. As each mail server receives a new message, it adds a new Received: header to the top of the message. Thus the last mail server to process the message added the first Received: header you see when reading in a top-down direction, and the first mail server to process the message added the last Received: header that you see.

There is currently no reliable authentication of message senders in Internet e-mail because e-mail protocols allow the sender to specify any From: header he or she chooses. Thus somebody wanting to forge e-mail could simply specify From: president@whitehouse.gov if they wanted to, either via reconfiguring their e-mail client or using anonymous "throw-away" e-mail addresses from such free e-mail providers as Hotmail or Yahoo.

But once a forger sends a message, the forger has no control over what extra headers are added by each mail server between sender and recipient.

This is where the Received: headers are important, especially the Received: header added by the first mail server to process the message. The host name and IP address of the sender's (forger's) computer is captured in this first Received: header. In the case of the sample Ron Davis message above, we know from the bolded, italicized Received: header that:

When packets from my computer travel to Ron's computer, they enter the Roadrunner network in Los Angeles (rr-los-angeles.atnd.net), then into the Orange County portion of the Roadrunner network (POS14-0.ORNGCA4-GSR1.socal.rr.com) and finally into Huntington Beach (GIG0-1.HNBCA2-UBR2.socal.rr.com) before reaching Ron's computer in the last entry.

So we have learned that the message at the top of this page was sent from IP address 66.27.146.105, from a computer that Ron has named "wiggy", which is located in Huntington Beach.

Now let's look at a more recent Ron Davis e-mail message. The following private message was sent to me 3.5 hours after the most recent "Stuart Welch" message as I type this:

We can see that the key information in bolded italics has not changed. Ron Davis has been using the same Roadrunner IP address throughout the duration of the Stuart Welch messages.

The First Message From Stuart Welch

Stuart is using a "throw-away" e-mail address of wxyzzyxw2003@yahoo.com. Addresses from free e-mail providers like Yahoo are called "throw-away" addresses because 1) they are free, and 2) the e-mail provider makes no attempt to verify that you are who you say you are when you create the e-mail address. Thus we can't really trust that "Stuart Welch" is the real identity of the message sender.

So what can we trust? We can only trust things that the sender has no control over, such as the first Received: header indicated in bold italics. The "via HTTP" means that the sender used Yahoo's web interface for posting the message. The web server that processed the message was web90001.mail.scd.yahoo.com, and the web browser that sent the message to the web server was at the IP address 66.27.146.105.

Note that Stuart Welch's IP address of 66.27.146.105 matches Ron Davis' IP address of 66.27.146.105. Hmmm. This means that both the genuine Ron Davis message and the suspicious Stuart Welch message likely originated from the same computer. I say "likely" instead of "absolutely positively" at this point because of the chance that dynamic IP addresses could be involved.

Dynamic vs. Static IP Addresses

There are only a finite number of IP addresses. Since the Internet continues to grow at a phenomenal rate, IP addresses are being consumed rapidly. Some people say there is a looming shortage of the current IPv4-style of addresses that will require a migration to new-style IPv6 addresses sometime during the next decade.

Because IP addresses are finite, they are a valuable resource which poses a challenge for ISPs to allocate them in an efficient manner. If a consumer ISP has 100,000 customers, that ISP will need at least 100,000 IP addresses if all of those customers are going to use the Internet at the same time. The consumer ISP could purchase 100,000 IP address from their upstream "level 2" ISP and permanently allocate one IP address to every customer. This is called "static" IP addressing because the customer's address never changes.

But it is very unlikely that all of the customers will be online at the same time. So some consumer ISPs will purchase a much smaller number of IP addresses from their upstream ISP, and only allocate an IP address to a customer when that customer actually goes online and possibly removes it from the customer when the customer goes offline. This is called "dynamic" IP addressing because the customer's IP address can be different every time they go online.

Is Roadrunner Using Static or Dynamic IP Addresses?

If Roadrunner is using dynamic IP addresses, it could have been an incredible fluke that Ron Davis and Stuart Welch happened to share the same IP address. So how can we tell whether Roadrunner is using static or dynamic addresses?

Well, I suppose we could phone Roadrunner and ask, but that wouldn't be nearly as fun as looking at every single e-mail message that Ron Davis has ever posted to the SEHBNA mailing list. Note that you must be an official SEHBNA subscriber in order to browse or search through its archives.

Note that Yahoo prevents spammers from harvesting e-mail addresses from archives by obscuring the e-mail addresses. But the Received: headers are preserved, and from this message we can see that "wiggy" was using an IP address of 24.24.252.161 back in November 2003.

Hmmm... that's a different IP address compared to the earlier Ron Davis and Stuart Welch messages above. We can't really tell from the limited number of messages examined so far whether the IP address is really static or dynamic. It could be dynamic. But it could also be static, and the ISP has since renumbered their network topology. This does happen occasionally in static IP address networks.

So we need to keep looking at every Ron Davis message backwards in time through the SEHBNA archive in order to get more data points. The oldest Ron Davis SEHBNA message can be found at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sehbna/message/564?source=1:

We see that both the oldest and newest SEHBNA messages from Ron Davis are using the same IP address of 24.24.252.161. This spans a time period of 5 months and several dozen messages, all of which (not reproduced here) originated from an IP address of 24.24.252.161. Furthermore, Ron Davis messages in the private archives of various HB residents can show usage of the 24.24.252.161 IP address as far back as early 2003.

So for a period of almost a year, Ron Davis was using the same Roadrunner IP address. Thus it is a reasonable conclusion that Roadrunner is using static IP addresses that never change, unless Roadrunner reorganizes their network, which apparently happened sometime between November 2003 and March 2004.

This network reorg resulted in Ron Davis obtaining a new static IP address of 66.27.146.105, which is also used by Stuart Welch. Since static IP addresses appear to be involved, it is absolutely positively certain beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Ron Davis and Stuart Welch messages are originating from the same computer.

So we have nailed down the issue of a single computer being used to send both sets of messages. But is Stuart Welch a real person who has access to Ron Davis' home computer, or is Stuart really just Ron Davis in disguise? In order to answer this question, we need to look at message timestamps and content.

Timestamp Analysis

By looking at every Ron Davis message in the SEHBNA archives, a pattern quickly emerges of when Ron typically posts his messages:

Message Body Content Analysis

The body content of the Stuart Welch messages have a number of characteristics in common with Ron Davis messages. These similarities suggest that it is Ron Davis writing under the Stuart Welch pseudonym. Stuart Welch may or may not be a real person -- message content analysis cannot answer this question. Even if Stuart Welch is real, it looks like Ron Davis is writing under Stuart's name in an effort to hide the true identity of the author.

Unique Salutation Style

References to Other People as "Mr." or "Ms."

Argumentative Tone of Voice

Stuart Welch uses a harshly argumentative tone of voice in his writing. Ron Davis is similarly combative in the SEHBNA archives.

Conclusion -- Stuart Welch is Ron Davis in Disguise

The fact that the same static IP address is being used by both Stuart Welch and Ron Davis proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that e-mail messages from both Stuart Welch and Ron Davis are originating from the same computer.

Timestamp analysis strongly suggests that this computer is located in Ron Davis' home. Traceroute verification of the Roadrunner network topology also suggests that a home computer is involved.

The body content of messages sent by Stuart Welch and Ron Davis share several characteristics that are unusual compared to the way most people compose e-mail.

Therefore the most likely logical conclusion is that the messages purporting to be from Stuart Welch are in reality being written by Ron Davis as part of a subterfuge meant to deceive the residents of Huntington Beach.

Appendix: All Stuart Welch E-mail Messages

The messages below are copies of all of the Stuart Welch messages that I have received as an hbtalk subscriber. The hbtalk mailing list allows subscribers to view both formatted message archives and the entire raw mailbox file of every message ever sent to hbtalk (note: this raw file is currently 2 megabytes in size).

I guess I don't understand the process. I watched the Planning Commission meeting last Tuesday. That night, Mark Bixby indicated that he talked to Chairman Davis a few days earlier about some secret meetings. He said that Davis decided not to attend any of the meetings and insisted that the staff make the presentation at the hearing. According to Mr. Bixby's grapevine, nothing about the project was discussed at the meetings. Now Mr. Racano wants Davis fired. What did he do? It seemed to me he had every reason to be upset at the meeting after being accused of violating the law.

Stuart Welch

Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢

Joey: Thank you for your response. I had vaguely remembered the incident that cost Kokal his job. In this day of political spin, I thought it might be helpful to get Davis's version of the facts, so I called him. Maybe you will comment on his understanding of what happened. He reminded me that Kokal and some other Commissioners got together in private to agree to decide an issue a certain way. Publicly, Mr. Scandura was the Commissioner with the courage to admit the violation and confirmed the meeting amoung four commissioners. While Davis indicated that there may have been other reasons and pointed out that there was no formal statement from Boardman on the issue, the inference was that Kokal was dismissed because of his personal participation in the violation. Davis reminded me that Mr. Bixby actually attended the council meeting and argued that Kokal was doing a great job. Isn't this the same guy and his wife! that continue to attack the Commission for Brown Act violations.

Davis indicated that he did not participate in any meetings. He tells me that he advised staff to advise the other commissioners, prior to the meeting, of Mr. Bixby's concerns, and that those planning to attend the meeting, should reconsider. I asked him to explain why you might be calling for him to be fired. His view was that you just don't like the way he might vote on an issue. He pointed out that neither you nor Mr. Bixby have called for the firing of any of the members who actually attended the meetings. He also mentioned that you did not ask for the resignations of any of those who participated in the meetings that got Kokal fired. I think his question is a fair question: How is it that you'll call for the dismissal of someone who didn't participate in a violation, did what he could to ensure that no violation took place, and keep quiet about those who did violate the Brown Act in your opinion.

I hope you can clarify this.

Stuart Welch

Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢

I'm not sure I completely understand. Does the Chair of the Planning Commission, or the Mayor of the City Council, have the power to tell members what or what not to do? I thought they were just one member of the body. Do they have powers I am unaware of? Mark Bixby <mark@bixby.org> wrote:

Stuart Welch wrote: > Joey: Thank you for your response. I had vaguely remembered the > incident that cost Kokal his job. In this day of political spin, I > thought it might be helpful to get Davis's version of the facts, so I > called him. Maybe you will comment on his understanding of what > happened. He reminded me that Kokal and some other Commissioners got > together in private to agree to decide an issue a certain way. > Publicly, Mr. Scandura was the Commissioner with the courage to admit > the violation and confirmed the meeting amoung four commissioners. > While Davis indicated that there may have been other reasons and pointed > out that there was no formal statement from Boardman on the issue, the > inference was that Kokal was dismissed because of his personal > participation in the violation. Davis reminded me that Mr. Bixby > actually attended the council meeting and argued that Kokal was doing a > great job. Isn't this the same guy and his wife! that continue to > attack the Commission for Brown Act violations. There is an important difference between the two incidents. My recollection of the Kokal incident was that Kokal was trying to do the right thing by resolving issues plaguing that rather dysfunctional Commission and inadvertently tripped up with respect to the Brown Act. Whereas with the Davis incident, Davis had a choice between holding the water quality briefing in public or in private and he chose in private. None of the private meetings had happened as of when I phoned him, so there was still time to cancel those meetings and do the right thing and do it all in public. But this did not happen, and so a bunch of people showed up to complain about it on Tuesday night. So while I gave Davis partial credit for scheduling a public repeat, it is still disappointing that the private meetings were not cancelled outright. Hmmm... but in trying to do the right thing with a public repeat, Davis inadvertently tripped up on Brown Act agenda requirements, so perhaps there are similar elements in both incidents. > Davis indicated that he did not participate in any meetings. He tells > me that he advised staff to advise the other commissioners, prior to the > meeting, of Mr. Bixby's concerns, and that those planning to attend the > meeting, should reconsider. I asked him to explain why you might be > calling for him to be fired. His view was that you just don't like the > way he might vote on an issue. He pointed out that neither you nor Mr. > Bixby have called for the firing of any of the members who actually > attended the meetings. He also mentioned that you did not ask for ! the > resignations of any of those who participated in the meetings that got > Kokal fired. I think his question is a fair question: How is it that > you'll call for the dismissal of someone who didn't participate in a > violation, did what he could to ensure that no violation took place, and > keep quiet about those who did violate the Brown Act in your opinion. I know you are are talking to Joey here, but I did not call for anybody on the Commission to resign because the real problem is with staff. The Commission takes direction from staff, including legal direction from the City Attorney. As long as staff and the City Attorney say these kinds of private meetings intentionally structured to exclude the public are legal, such meetings will likely continue, unless members of the Planning Commission and City Council push back on this and maximize the public's right to participate. Legal or not, these kin! ds of meetings are horrible public policy that benefit nobody. The city spends extra time doing these things in triplicate, and that translates to extra staff costs because staff isn't working on other tasks during the duplicated meetings. And the message is sent to the public that "we're willing to spend extra time and money so you can't participate". Davis has demonstrated a better consideration of the public's right to have written copies of meeting materials since I complained about that a few months ago. I have been very impressed by his letting people speak beyond the 4-minute limit as long as they are coherent and making progress (but I think the time donation aspect of public hearing reform needs to be implemented so that everybody plays by well-defined rules). I have no problem with Planning Commissioners and City Councilmembers voting different than the way I would (you may remember that my Kokal resignation spee! ch noted that he didn't vote the way I wanted on Parkside). All I ask is that the process be scrupulously fair to both the public and applicants. Private meetings to talk about official business are not fair to the public. I believe in generally giving people a chance to learn from their mistakes. From my phone calls with Davis, I hope that I have come away with an accurate impression that the odds of future private Planning Commission meetings have decreased. But the struggle will have to continue to get staff to stop relying on private meetings of public bodies as business as usual. -- mark@bixby.org Remainder of .sig suppressed to conserve expensive California electrons...

Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢

I don't follow the argument. Do I undersand you to say that Scandura, along with Kokal and other commissioners deliberately violated the Brown Act so that Scandura could publicly admit his violation so that Kokal would be fired? How would Scandura know that Kokal might be fired? And, since Connie Boardman had appointed Kokal, how could Scandura know that Boardman wouldn't reappoint another commissioner also opposed to the desal plant? This all seems like a real reach to me.

You also said Davis is responsible for the other commissioners meeting with the staff. How is that the case? Can he instruct the other commissioners who they can and cannot meet with? Shouldn't we be asking for the resignations of those who went to the meetings if that we illegal. I believe one of the commissioners admitted that he went to the meeting and thought he violated the law. Shouldn't that commissioner be fired? Joey Racano <joeylittleshell@yahoo.com> wrote:

Mr Welch said: "Publicly, Mr. Scandura was the Commissioner with the courage to admit the violation and confirmed the meeting amoung four commissioners"

No, Mr. Scandura was more likely a shill for Poseiden desalination, and had the 'courage' to publicly state his involvement in the Brown Act violation because Kokal (the char) would get kicked out for it- and Kokal was about to VOTE AGAINST the DESAL PLANT. So, Scandura was a bit less than COURAGEOUS.

As far as Mr. Davis thinking "I might not like the way he'll vote" on an issue-

Aint it the truth! He's usually on the wrong end of issues, and though I like him personally (he is a dynamic individual and born for TV, did you see the show he me and none other than BLAKE ANDERSON (gen mgr OCSD) did once about OCSD's Bleach Dumping??) but he really should have known better. Also, remember that we must be vigilant- If it takes 6 to make a quoram, sometimes these folks will simply have three seperate meetings with 2 commissioners attending each one. Its a way around the Brown act and is called a 'string' meeting. Davis is responsible. Debbie knows what she needs to do. Pacific City is trying to hijack its way through the process and it aint gonna work.

Warmly, JR xo Stuart Welch <wxyzzyxw2003@yahoo.com> wrote:

Joey: Thank you for your response. I had vaguely remembered the incident that cost Kokal his job. In this day of political spin, I thought it might be helpful to get Davis's version of the facts, so I called him. Maybe you will comment on his understanding of what happened. He reminded me that Kokal and some other Commissioners got together in private to agree to decide an issue a certain way. Publicly, Mr. Scandura was the Commissioner with the courage to admit the violation and confirmed the meeting amoung four commissioners. While Davis indicated that there may have been other reasons and pointed out that there was no formal statement from Boardman on the issue, the inference was that Kokal was dismissed because of his personal participation in the violation. Davis reminded me that Mr. Bixby actually attended the council meeting and argued that Kokal was doing a great job. Isn't this the same guy and his wife! ! that continue to attack the Commission for Brown Act violations.

Davis indicated that he did not participate in any meetings. He tells me that he advised staff to advise the other commissioners, prior to the meeting, of Mr. Bixby's concerns, and that those planning to attend the meeting, should reconsider. I asked him to explain why you might be calling for him to be fired. His view was that you just don't like the way he might vote on an issue. He pointed out that neither you nor Mr. Bixby have called for the firing of any of the members who actually attended the meetings. He also mentioned that you did not ask for the resignations of any of those who participated in the meetings that got Kokal fired. I think his question is a fair question: How is it that you'll call for the dismissal of someone who didn't participate in a violation, did what he could to ensure that no violation took place, and keep quiet about those who did violate the Brown Act in your opinion.

I hope you can clarify this.

Stuart Welch

Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢_______________________________________________ hbtalk mailing list hbtalk@bixby.org http://www.bixby.org/mailman/listinfo/hbtalk
let's save the world!

Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢

Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢

From - Mon Apr 19 08:14:44 2004
X-UIDL: 1082384701.26334.gw,S=19298
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
X-Mozilla-Status2: 10000000
Return-Path: <hbtalk-bounces@bixby.org>
Delivered-To: bixby@kageo.com
Received: (qmail 26331 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2004 07:25:01 -0700
Received: from odo.bixby.org (207.151.46.201)
  by kageo.com with SMTP; 19 Apr 2004 07:25:01 -0700
Received: from odo.bixby.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by odo.bixby.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3JEPPmq006130;
	Mon, 19 Apr 2004 07:25:25 -0700
Received: from mail34.messagelabs.com (mail34.messagelabs.com [64.125.76.19])
	by odo.bixby.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id i3JEPMmp006127
	for <HBTALK@bixby.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 07:25:23 -0700
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: wxyzzyxw2003@yahoo.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-16.tower-34.messagelabs.com!1082384719!10629632
X-StarScan-Version: 5.2.10; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [66.218.94.62]
X-SpamReason: No, hits=-3.5 required=7.0 tests=CYNIC_B_GOOD,
	FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD,FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS,HTML_MESSAGE
Received: (qmail 21170 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2004 14:25:19 -0000
Received: from web90004.mail.scd.yahoo.com (66.218.94.62)
	by server-16.tower-34.messagelabs.com with SMTP;
	19 Apr 2004 14:25:19 -0000
Message-ID: <20040419142518.9741.qmail@web90004.mail.scd.yahoo.com>
Received: from [66.27.146.105] by web90004.mail.scd.yahoo.com via HTTP;
	Mon, 19 Apr 2004 07:25:18 PDT
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 07:25:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Stuart Welch <wxyzzyxw2003@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [HBTALK] Brown Act
To: Merrilee Madrigal <merrilee_madrigal@hotmail.com>, HBTALK@bixby.org
In-Reply-To: <SEA2-DAV59bNDN4CxpA00015513@hotmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: 
X-BeenThere: hbtalk@bixby.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2
Precedence: list
List-Id: Anything pertaining to Huntington Beach, California
	<hbtalk.bixby.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.bixby.org/mailman/listinfo/hbtalk>,
	<mailto:hbtalk-request@bixby.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.bixby.org/mailman/private/hbtalk>
List-Post: <mailto:hbtalk@bixby.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hbtalk-request@bixby.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.bixby.org/mailman/listinfo/hbtalk>,
	<mailto:hbtalk-request@bixby.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============89178948831582305=="
Sender: hbtalk-bounces@bixby.org
Errors-To: hbtalk-bounces@bixby.org

I've read your response to my earlier questions, but you didn't address my questions, instead you went to something else. According to you, the issue was on the Planning Commission's agenda twice: once at 5 and again at 7. Apparently you read the agenda and missed the fact that it was on at 5 for an open discussion. You claim that Mr. Hiro spoke at the 5 meeting. Was that improper? Or, was he entitled to speak? Was the meeting open to the public? Was it on the agenda for 5? If both of those are true, what does this have to do with the claim that secret meetings are going on? Merrilee Madrigal <merrilee_madrigal@hotmail.com> wrote:

----- Original Message -----

From: Merrilee Madrigal

To: Stuart Welch

Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 6:56 PM

Subject: Re: [HBTALK] Brown Act

Dear Stuart,

This is not the only incident under the watch of Chairman Davis. Let me tell you about Hiro's Nursery.

Hiro's Nursery was agendized for a 7:00 Planning Commission Meeting, Item E-1 "Update on Activities of Hiro's Nursery"  regarding enforcement efforts with various issues the most important being the unauthorized landfilling of the Santa Ana River / Edison Corridor. I waited until the end of the session for the E-1 Update Item to arrive to hear Chairman Davis announce they were not going to discuss it because it was already discussed at the 5:00 Session. He said the purpose was to update the Commissioners and they had already been updated.  Well about about me Chairman Davis waiting in the audience for the agendized item?   And what about the other members of my community waiting at home to watch it on TV?

When the Meeting was adjourned I asked Herb Fauland if the 5:00 discussion on Hiro's was an open study session, and he said yes. I asked him who made it an open study session and he told me Commissioner Davis.

From that point forward the Commissioners opinions had changed. I will never know what was said. But Hiro and his Engineer were there. (How did that happen?)   Myself and the viewers at home had been blatantly and rather effectively cut out of the public process.

Perhaps Staff wants to be the administrative arm of government and does not want to have to deal with the public.  But when a Chair Commissioner goes along with their agenda and calls a meeting or a series of meetings unnanounced and unavailable to the public on issues the public are actively working on, it violates the public trust, circumvents the public participation process and is very bad government.

I'll admit the public can be difficult at times. However, it is the taxpaying public citizen that runs this city and should be afforded that opportunity.  If civil servants are found to betray the public trust, then the service should be entrusted to someone else that will respect the rights and interests of the taxpaying citizens and will perform their duties for the public benefit and not some other (secret?) agenda.

This is why there is political unrest right now.

Merrilee

----- Original Message -----

From: Stuart Welch

To: Stuart Welch ; hbtalk@bixby.org

Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 3:35 PM

Subject: Re: [HBTALK] Brown Act

I'm at a loss to understand the explanation. No one has answered the question of why you would fire Davis when he didn't in those "secret" meetings, yet say nothing about those that did. After talking to Davis, he indicated he doesn't have the right to tell people not to attend meetings to get info. He told me that he advised staff to tell the other commissioners to reconsider attending the meetings. And, it appears that he didn't attend. Does he have the power to tell either the commissioners or staff not to do something? Wouldn't that kind of power violate the Brown Act?

Shouldn't we be doing something about those who met in secret?

Stuart Welch <wxyzzyxw2003@yahoo.com> wrote:

Joey: Thank you for your response. I had vaguely remembered the incident that cost Kokal his job. In this day of political spin, I thought it might be helpful to get Davis's version of the facts, so I called him. Maybe you will comment on his understanding of what happened. He reminded me that Kokal and some other Commissioners got together in private to agree to decide an issue a certain way. Publicly, Mr. Scandura was the Commissioner with the courage to admit the violation and confirmed the meeting among four commissioners. While Davis indicated that there may have been other reasons and pointed out that there was no formal statement from Boardman on the issue, the inference was that Kokal was dismissed because of his personal participation in the violation. Davis reminded me that Mr. Bixby actually attended the council meeting and argued that Kokal was doing a great job. Isn't this the same guy and his wife!! ! that continue to attack the Commission for Brown Act violations.

Davis indicated that he did not participate in any meetings. He tells me that he advised staff to advise the other commissioners, prior to the meeting, of Mr. Bixby's concerns, and that those planning to attend the meeting, should reconsider. I asked him to explain why you might be calling for him to be fired. His view was that you just don't like the way he might vote on an issue. He pointed out that neither you nor Mr. Bixby have called for the firing of any of the members who actually attended the meetings. He also mentioned that you did not ask for the resignations of any of those who participated in the meetings that got Kokal fired. I think his question is a fair question: How is it that you'll call for the dismissal of someone who didn't participate in a violation, did what he could to ensure that no violation took place, and keep quiet about those who did violate the Brown Act in your opinion.

I hope you can clarify this.

Stuart Welch

Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢_______________________________________________ hbtalk mailing list hbtalk@bixby.org http://www.bixby.org/mailman/listinfo/hbtalk

Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢

_______________________________________________ hbtalk mailing list hbtalk@bixby.org http://www.bixby.org/mailman/listinfo/hbtalk

_______________________________________________ hbtalk mailing list hbtalk@bixby.org http://www.bixby.org/mailman/listinfo/hbtalk

Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢

From - Mon Apr 19 09:54:36 2004
X-UIDL: 1082393166.4897.gw,S=5105
X-Mozilla-Status: 0013
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-Path: <wxyzzyxw2003@yahoo.com>
Delivered-To: bixby@kageo.com
Received: (qmail 4894 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2004 09:46:06 -0700
Received: from odo.bixby.org (207.151.46.201)
  by kageo.com with SMTP; 19 Apr 2004 09:46:06 -0700
Received: from mail34.messagelabs.com (mail34.messagelabs.com [64.125.76.19])
	by odo.bixby.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id i3JGo3mp006383
	for <mark@bixby.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 09:50:03 -0700
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: wxyzzyxw2003@yahoo.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-18.tower-34.messagelabs.com!1082393394!10689121
X-StarScan-Version: 5.2.10; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [66.218.94.68]
X-SpamReason: No, hits=-3.5 required=7.0 tests=CYNIC_B_GOOD,
  FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD,FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS,HTML_MESSAGE
Received: (qmail 8656 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2004 16:49:57 -0000
Received: from web90010.mail.scd.yahoo.com (66.218.94.68)
  by server-18.tower-34.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 19 Apr 2004 16:49:57 -0000
Message-ID: <20040419164954.30564.qmail@web90010.mail.scd.yahoo.com>
Received: from [66.27.146.105] by web90010.mail.scd.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 09:49:54 PDT
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 09:49:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Stuart Welch <wxyzzyxw2003@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [HBTALK] Planning Commission secret meeting documents
To: Mark Bixby <mark@bixby.org>, hbtalk@bixby.org
In-Reply-To: <4083F358.9010701@bixby.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0

Who were the commissioners who attended this secret meeting. Mark Bixby <mark@bixby.org> wrote:

Hi hbtalk, See attached for the map and memo which were distributed to the Planning Commissioners attending the secret water quality meeting held late in the afternoon of April 12th. Note that Pacific City's 31 acres are indicated on the map with blue honeycomb. Pacific City is mentioned on PDF page 3 of the memo, and is the only development project mentioned by name. So it seems pretty clear that these secret meetings were related to Pacific City. - Mark B. PS: The paper original memo handed to me yesterday had been felt-pen highlighted with almost every color in the rainbow by the meeting attendee. In order to prevent the mailbox quota problems that would result if I distributed 10 megabytes of color documents, I have used Photoshop to convert the memo to black & white in order to remove the highlight! ing. As a side-effect of this conversion, the highlighted areas appear somewhat bolded in B&W. The only use of bold fonts in the original paper copy was in titles and headings. -- mark@bixby.org Remainder of .sig suppressed to conserve expensive California electrons... > ATTACHMENT part 2 image/jpeg name=HBPC-040412-map.jpg > ATTACHMENT part 3 application/pdf name=HBPC-040412-memo.pdf _______________________________________________ hbtalk mailing list hbtalk@bixby.org http://www.bixby.org/mailman/listinfo/hbtalk

Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢


From - Mon Apr 19 20:39:41 2004
X-UIDL: 1082431505.16025.gw,S=8020
X-Mozilla-Status: 0013
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-Path: <wxyzzyxw2003@yahoo.com>
Delivered-To: bixby@kageo.com
Received: (qmail 16022 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2004 20:25:04 -0700
Received: from odo.bixby.org (207.151.46.201)
  by kageo.com with SMTP; 19 Apr 2004 20:25:04 -0700
Received: from mail34.messagelabs.com (mail34.messagelabs.com [64.125.76.19])
	by odo.bixby.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id i3K3T3mp007200
	for <mark@bixby.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 20:29:05 -0700
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: wxyzzyxw2003@yahoo.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-7.tower-34.messagelabs.com!1082431740!10510469
X-StarScan-Version: 5.2.10; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [66.218.94.60]
X-SpamReason: No, hits=-3.5 required=7.0 tests=CYNIC_B_GOOD,
  FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD,FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS,HTML_MESSAGE
Received: (qmail 20604 invoked from network); 20 Apr 2004 03:29:00 -0000
Received: from web90002.mail.scd.yahoo.com (66.218.94.60)
  by server-7.tower-34.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 20 Apr 2004 03:29:00 -0000
Message-ID: <20040420032900.19995.qmail@web90002.mail.scd.yahoo.com>
Received: from [66.27.146.105] by web90002.mail.scd.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 20:29:00 PDT
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 20:29:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Stuart Welch <wxyzzyxw2003@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [HBTALK] Planning Commission secret meeting documents
To: Mark Bixby <mark@bixby.org>
Cc: hbtalk@bixby.org
In-Reply-To: <4084723D.9020709@bixby.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0

Shouldn't we be insisting on the removal of the five members who attended the meeting. If I recall correctly, Mr. Dingwall admitted that he knew the meetings for the others were scheduled. If I am correct, didn't he also participate in the last Brown Act violation. Mark Bixby <mark@bixby.org> wrote:

Stuart Welch wrote: > Who were the commissioners who attended this secret meeting. 5 commissioners (Thomas, Scandura, Shomaker, Livengood, Dingwall) announced during the disclosure portion of the continued public hearing that they attended the secret meetings, but I don't recall that the attendees said on what day they attended. I would imagine that you could probably phone Ron Davis or Scott Hess to get that information. There would have been no Brown Act issue for the first 3 chronological attendees had there been no further meetings after that point. But once attendee #4 had his or her meeting, then it became a problem. - Mark B. > > */Mark Bixby /* wrote: > > Hi hbtalk, > > See attached for the map and memo which were distributed to the > Planning ! > Commissioners attending the secret water quality meeting held late > in the > afternoon of April 12th. > > Note that Pacific City's 31 acres are indicated on the map with blue > honeycomb. > > Pacific City is mentioned on PDF page 3 of the memo, and is the only > development project mentioned by name. > > So it seems pretty clear that these secret meetings were related to > Pacific City. > > - Mark B. > > PS: The paper original memo handed to me yesterday had been felt-pen > highlighted with almost every color in the rainbow by the meeting > attendee. In > order to prevent the mailbox quota problems that would result if I > distributed > 10 megabytes of color documents, I have used Photoshop to convert > the memo to > black & white in order to remove the highlight! ing. As a > side-effect of this > conversion, the highlight! ed areas appear somewhat bolded in B&W. The > only use > of bold fonts in the original paper copy was in titles and headings. > -- > mark@bixby.org > Remainder of .sig suppressed to conserve expensive California > electrons... > > > > > ATTACHMENT part 2 image/jpeg name=HBPC-040412-map.jpg > > > > ATTACHMENT part 3 application/pdf name=HBPC-040412-memo.pdf > _______________________________________________ > hbtalk mailing list > hbtalk@bixby.org > http://www.bixby.org/mailman/listinfo/hbtalk > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢ > > om/ph/print_splash> -- mark@bixby.org Remainder of .sig suppressed to conserve expensive California electrons...

Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢


From - Thu Apr 22 19:46:08 2004
X-UIDL: 1082685304.2566.gw,S=12707
X-Mozilla-Status: 0013
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-Path: <wxyzzyxw2003@yahoo.com>
Delivered-To: bixby@kageo.com
Received: (qmail 2563 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2004 18:55:03 -0700
Received: from odo.bixby.org (207.151.46.201)
  by kageo.com with SMTP; 22 Apr 2004 18:55:03 -0700
Received: from mail34.messagelabs.com (mail34.messagelabs.com [64.125.76.19])
	by odo.bixby.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id i3N1xtmp014347
	for <mark@bixby.org>; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 18:59:55 -0700
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: wxyzzyxw2003@yahoo.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-22.tower-34.messagelabs.com!1082685591!10971579
X-StarScan-Version: 5.2.10; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [66.218.94.64]
X-SpamReason: No, hits=-3.5 required=7.0 tests=CYNIC_B_GOOD,
  FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD,FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS,HTML_MESSAGE
Received: (qmail 31236 invoked from network); 23 Apr 2004 01:59:52 -0000
Received: from web90006.mail.scd.yahoo.com (66.218.94.64)
  by server-22.tower-34.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 23 Apr 2004 01:59:52 -0000
Message-ID: <20040423015951.56972.qmail@web90006.mail.scd.yahoo.com>
Received: from [66.27.146.105] by web90006.mail.scd.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 18:59:51 PDT
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 18:59:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Stuart Welch <wxyzzyxw2003@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [HBTALK] Planning Commission secret meeting documents
To: Mark Bixby <mark@bixby.org>
Cc: hbtalk@bixby.org
In-Reply-To: <40883972.3030407@bixby.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0

Perhaps you'll recall in an earlier email I indicated a vague familiarity with the Kokal incident. Because it was mentioned and I didn't clearly recall all of the events, I wrote that I contacted Mr. Davis. I asked him about the recent events and what he did and did not do and I asked him to remind me about the Kokal firing. You may recall that Mr. Racano said the one of the Commissioners who admitted to violating the Brown Act in connection with that incident, wasn't courageous, since he knew Kokal was voting in favor of the water plant and this would be a way to get rid of Kokal and his vote. That logic mystified me, so I asked for Davis' version.

He told me that a majority of the commission, four commissioners, got together in a serial meeting, not announced to the public, and agreed on a certain course of action. Scandura publicly admitted his involvement in the matter. Mr. Davis also indicated that Mr. Livengood also spoke with him privately later on and told him the same story.

Sometime later Kokal was removed. Davis indicated the you, who he says continually comes to meetings and lectures on the Brown Act, didn't say boo about this secret meeting. Not only that, he reminded me that you came down to the City Council meeting and supported Kokal. His point to me was the apparent hypocracy of your current position. He was miffed because he thought he was as responsive to your concerns as possible, only to be blasted by you and others.

I happen to like Davis. I watched him on that TV show he had and read his columns. I always thought the guy was fair and made a lot of sense. I've also watched him on the Planning Commission. He's shown a great deal of patience listening to people go on and on. And, I haven't noticed him cutting one side off and favoring another. And, based on what I heard the other night, he's been willing to meet with you and almost anyone else in the city to discuss issues. So, I was shocked to hear some people calling for him to be fired. Even though I am biased in his favor because I have watched him, I wanted to give those who were calling for his head and opportunity to convince me he did something wrong. So far, I have heard a load of off-point crap and double stand junk.

I have asked: If the concern is about ferreting out those who violate the Brown Act, why is it that no one is pointing fingers at those that attended the secret meeting? Shouldn't they have known better? And, why should Davis get fired? I asked earlier if Davis had the authority to instruct the commissioners who and who not to meet with. I received no response from anyone. Davis had indicated he has no such power. I asked if Davis had the authority to instruct staff not to meet with the commissioners. Also no response. The lack of response to the last questions confirms that he can do neither. So, if he didn't go to the meeting and doesn't have the power to stop others from going, what did he do wrong?

My sense is that its all politics. When I tried to get answers from Mr. Racano, he just wrote back and told me "irrelevant." This whole thing stinks of the worst sort of politics. After reviewing the emails, it seems clear that none of you would give a damn about any violations of the Brown Act if committed by people who vote the way you want them to vote. Mark Bixby <mark@bixby.org> wrote:

Hi Stuart, There was something I forgot to ask you in the message I posted yesterday. Stuart Welch wrote: > Shouldn't we be insisting on the removal of the five members who > attended the meeting. If I recall correctly, Mr. Dingwall admitted that > he knew the meetings for the others were scheduled. If I am correct, > didn't he also participate in the last Brown Act violation. Presumably by "the last Brown Act violation" you are referring to last year's Kokal incident. You appear to be an astute observer of the Planning Commission and you seem to have paid quite close attention to that Kokal incident. I do not remember any members of the public calling for any commissioners to resign back then. Did I somehow miss your letter to the editor, a written comment in an agenda packet, or an oral communications speech? The LA Times, OC Register, HB Wave, and HB Independent newspapers all get read religiously here. I watch every Planning Commission and City Council oral communications segment either in person or via HBTV. And I have a very good grapevine. ;-) So I find it a bit unusual that I can't remember seeing your strong opinions in any public forum except earlier this week in hbtalk@bixby.org. Now it is possible that in my feeble attempts to "get a life" away from City Hall I somehow missed you participating in city issues last year. If that is the case, I apologize for my inattention and I would greatly appreciate it if you can refer me to any previous public comments of yours that will help me to better understand the arguments you are currently making. Thanks... -- mark@bixby.org Remainder of .sig suppressed to conserve expensive California electrons...

Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢

Ron Davis / Stuart Welch Comparative E-mail Forensic Analysis

Introduction

Genuine Ron Davis E-mail Messages

The First Message From Stuart Welch

Dynamic vs. Static IP Addresses

Is Roadrunner Using Static or Dynamic IP Addresses?

Timestamp Analysis

Message Body Content Analysis

Unique Salutation Style

References to Other People as "Mr." or "Ms."

Argumentative Tone of Voice

Conclusion -- Stuart Welch is Ron Davis in Disguise

Appendix: All Stuart Welch E-mail Messages