Sep 102020
 

I got a special message from Scott Alvord today. Apparently he does not like Tracy Mendonsa very much. Please note folks – I don’t work for Tracy Mendonsa, Gary Johnson or anyone else. I am an independent operator and am 100% free from any entanglements. Now, do you guys think that makes me less dangerous or MORE dangerous?

I am not bound by any sort of inane “Clean Campaign” pledge, deal with it. I am especially liberated now that the lawyers have tried intimidating me too – that was a nice touch (beyond the complaint against Tracy’s Business) speaking of clean campaigns.

Note that the phone number is Scott Alvord’s Cell Phone. It is not redacted as he has published it.

Sorry Neil Pople, you are off Team Alvord Roseville Police.

I guess a deadbeat dad with a history of political Tourette’s Syndrome is the solution because Alvord just does not like Tracy Mendonsa. What a position for Scott to be in, having to support an unemployed deadbeat dad. (At least LaMills told the court he has no income to avoid child support payments?)

I am also quaking in my boots thinking of all the horrible things Scott Alvord could do because he has a deeper reach than I do. I mean Placer County Counsel just could not get the job done, but now it is Scott Alvord!

Well Team Alvord – the last sentence should make you all feel warm and fuzzy. It looks like Roseville Transit just showed up with Scotty behind the wheel and you are looking at the rear axles. Alvord is going places with his deeper reach but there is only room on the bus for LaMills Garrett as it goes headlong in to Folsom Lake.

The election is in just 7 weeks. Party Time.

Stay Informed!

Sign up to receive RightOnDaily updates sent to your inbox.

  5 Responses to “RIGHT ON DAILY SPECIAL UPDATE: Did Scott Alvord Just Throw a Bunch of People Under the Bus?”

  1. Well, that was really crummy of you doing that. And because it’s out of context, let’s disclose the carefully redacted text that you conveniently hid, which made it sound like I was saying something I was not. (Tracy, I’m sorry. I didn’t plan to post anything like this but Aaron isn’t being responsibly in his wording).

    “…it is not honorable. You’re portraying me to be something that you KNOW I’m not. I’m not supporting Neil over Bruce, and you already know that Tracy was unanimously voted off Planning Commission because he wasn’t cut out for it. I like Tracy…”

    “…that’s fine, of course. But we’ve known each other long enough and I hope you will back off on me, or at least be fair. You KNOW I’m a big police supporter. Having compassion for POC doesn’t automatically make me anti-police. I’m running my own race…”

  2. Scott, Let’s be a bit more careful in your characterization of what has gone on. You should know better, you are not a blogger, you are an elected official and your comments about your official actions should be accurate.

    Tracy was not “voted off the Planning Commission” – his term was coming to an end and he and others applied for appointment to the next term. The council made appointments and Tracy was not one of them.

    There is a big difference between being removed from a commission and not being appointed to a commission, and you know it.

    You may not think Tracy is cut out for it, just like I’m sure there are others who felt that way about you. You know that I supported you for city council, came to your events, contributed, put a sign in front of my house, and encouraged others to do the same. But not everyone did.

    As an elected city councilmember you have an obligation to be accurate and truthful in your statements. Would you like to correct the record?

  3. Pete, please remember that my private text to Aaron, was not meant to be aired. He broke confidence and posted a misleading version of it. He already knew the story so I didn’t need to explain it to him. I don’t think this is the forum to get into details about exactly why his term wasn’t renewed. Yes, my public comments should be careful, and I try to be. This blog is anything but fair.

  4. Scott, You have an opportunity to correct the record here. You posted above excerpts from a text conversation in which you write “you already know that Tracy was unanimously voted off Planning Commission because he wasn’t cut out for it”

    Is this a TRUE statement?

    Or is my statement above, “his term was coming to an end and he and others applied for appointment to the next term. The council made appointments and Tracy was not one of them” the ACTUAL TRUTH? There is a BIG difference in these two statements. Primarily that one is True and the other is False.

    Those were your words that you might have originally made in a confidential text, but you have now made them public in this blog above.

    You now have made a false comment about another candidate in a public forum – this is a clear violation of the Campaign Ethics Pledge that you were asked to sign when filing for office. Did you not sign that?

    I hope you respond in an honest manner.

  5. For transparency, honesty, and clarification, Tracy served a full term on the planning commission and the city council voted 5-0 to not renew Tracy for a 2nd term on the planning commission. Anyone can watch the meeting and see the results of the voting. I was shocked it was 5-0 because I wasn’t aware that all other council members had come to the same conclusion as I had. I believe that Aaron knew that information already and my private shorthand in that private text message was not meant to be shared. Tracy, I’m sorry that it got out like that. How embarrassing for us both. I trusted him to keep a conversation private instead of redact selected items to make it read like something it was not. I count you as a friend and I think your business rocks and if you are chosen to serve on council, I’m sure you’ll do fine. This blog is harsh, unfair, and very one-sided. Hopefully the few readers out there know that.

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)