Shelly Bailes and Ellen Pontac/Talk

 InfoInfo ArticleArticle
Search:    

This page is for discussing the contents of the page Shelly Bailes and Ellen Pontac. When commenting, please use specifics and state which wordings or areas you have a problem with or would like improved.

"Official" Liaison

I am in contact with the Davis PD to see if they can vouch for the liason position being official or unofficial. I'd say that they have the final word on the issue. —jw

The liason position was an official position in fact Joy Fogoda got paid $3,000 a year and did it for many years. When she retired, she asked me to accept the position in her place. I did but there was no longer a stipend that went along with it since the City ran out of money and that was one of their cuts. I never got paid for it. You can check with Cief Pierce, if you like. Only one of the "facts" that are so wrong in this whole thing. ShellyBailes

Excellent. Was there a particular officer you dealt with who could say you held the position (is Chief Pierce an current officer... I haven't dealt with the DPD before)? Otherwise, I'm waiting for a call back from the commander of the watch. (Sounds like this will be very easy to verify... any info you can give me, dates, etc. will help) — jw

Update: The DPD never called me back after three voice mails... calling tomorrow to try and get Chief Pierce. Next comes email, then snail mail. *sigh* — jw

Update: I got a message on my office voice mail today with an officer telling me exactly who to call and talk to. He apologized; he's been training all week. Should have a specific answer tomorrow. — jw

"Unethical behavior"

I have a question about the page concerning "unethical behavior." To an outside observer that would imply something criminal or serious. I am curious as to what this is all about, because I couldn't find newspaper articles on it. So, could there be a source for this? Otherwise without background information it should probably be removed. Steven Ostrowski.

General Entry Comments

The most recent edit by Shelly Bailes seems unnecessarily verbose and uninteresting to most, I would guess. We do not need a laundry list of everything she has ever done, but rather some sort of overview with some major points. Shelly Bailes is editing this article herself which may make the entry uninteresting and perhaps biased; keep in mind this is supposed to be biographical and you, the subject, are not the best person to maintain the article because you want to present yourself in the best possible light (this is common to all of us). There are many places to list what you believe are your accomplishments elsewhere, including here on the wiki as has been suggested. I think the article was on the right track toward prose rather than bullets but this has since been wiped out. I propose a revert to [WWW]this version and a look at the recently added bullets to see if there's anything worth integrating back into the old format which I believe is more readable. I will be reverting the page back to this form after the disputed sections are resolved. I think there is too much information in bullet form on the page right now and it is, in general, completely unreadable. (2007-07-21)

I also want to mention that you are the expert on Shelly Bailes, but I think the page was headed in the right direction towards readability. —PhilipNeustrom

2006-07-24 I updated the page to use prose for the "accomplishments" section rather than bullets. It would be best to keep major points rather than a large enumeration of every accomplishment, I believe. Shelly mentioned that it contained incorrect information and reverted. I don't disagree, but please fix the information in the prose form so that the entry is more readable. —PhilipNeustrom

"Damaging... Confidence"

There is no proof of this statement "but the incident had a damaging effect on the commissioner's confidence in Shelly as Chair". Anybody care to support or disagree? —jw

You just put "some commissioners" instead of implying all because it fits with the next sentence where the commission discusses her staying on as chair. I think I already fixed the problem. —SteveOstrowski

When something is in dispute, I feel that it should be taken down until settled. The 4,000 people on this site could be reading a falsehood. Shelly Bailes

How does one verify the feelings of all the commissioners as to how they felt 6 years ago about one particular incident? Shelly Bailes

We knew there was a page about us but never added or corrected anything on it since its inception until very recently. We have no desire to make this a "bragging place" and feel odd listing "accomplishments." They are rather just "some things we have done". We have volunteered in Davis for over 20 years and never had any sort of list of the work we have done. THANK YOU for giving us the opportunity to think back on some of our volunteer "accomplishments." This journey has given us a lot of smiles and laughter and we've enjoyed it immensely. Shelly Bailes

"When something is in dispute, I feel that it should be taken down until settled. The 4,000 people on this site could be reading a falsehood. Shelly Bailes"

I have no idea what you're talking about. What link, what falsehood. I was told that 4,000 use Davis Wiki. Is this not true. -Shelly Bailes

It's true to the extent that a few dozen members are active daily but in theory thousands if not millions see this page.-SteveOstrowski

Shelly, see the page you created for me. See if you wrote anything that could be construed as a falsehood. Click on my name here - Sharla Daly - and it will take you to the page.

I don't believe that the statement below should be on this page since it has nothing to do with how former HRC member's spoke.

It is noted that out of 36 people speaking during public comment on this issue, 27 people spoke in support of the HRC and/or its current chair and 9 against. The supporters included 3 former mayors; 4 former chairs of the HRC; representatives from both the ACLU and BECA. Norbie Kumagai and Shelly were the only former members of the HRC, and Shelly the only former chair, that spoke against the current commission during public comment. Steve Souza, also a former chair of the HRC, as a city councilman voted to place the commission on hiatus and remove its members.

Millions? That's great! Shelly Bailes

Re: Shelly's Opinion section. It would have been great if she had said that at public comment and rather than just thinking it. It's been nearly three weeks and she has only clarified her testimony this after people did not back down from her efforts to minimize her testimony and worked to hold accountable for a statement made in her official capacity as a former chair of the commission. Nevertheless, I appreciate that she thinks that HRC is a valuable commission for the community and that she only felt that it was time for someone else to have a chance to chair the commission. The rest of the stuff - The numbers of people showing support is not an opinion, and rather hard to check. And probably an equal number of people could be found that thought she was out of line. To go down this road would just be divisive and a waste of time. As for Bob Dunning's quote - this is also not Shelly's opinion, but Bob's, and it only says that he liked her original testimony. This negates #1 and #2, doesn't it. - SharlaDaly

Thought this was being checked out. How long does this have to remain up since it seems that no one has come up with a good reason why it should not be removed. When can I remove this statement: but the incident had a damaging effect on the commissioner's confidence in Shelly as Chair
Also can't remember my high school math but several is either 3 or 8 both of which would be inaccurate for the amount of years we had been nominated and ignored. What's wrong with leaving the accurate number of 5
and since Sharla wants to put names of people that nominated I guess leaving Helen Thomson's name in would be more accurate. I know that in the years past other people had nominated us also. Shelly Bailes

I have been told that wiki sites are "self cleansing." I don't understand how that can be since folks are allowed to make something up, distort the truth, and even lie on wiki pages and those statements will remain unless and until someone else makes a correction. I would be willing to bet that most of these untruths remain as not enough people can spend all the time it would take to make these corrections. I have found these mis-statements to be true consistently on pages about so called "public figures." -Shelly Bailes

The wiki is pretty free flowing and is a wonderful resource. It is self-cleansing, and I believe that the wiki community has allowed you a lot of leeway in your own posts on the site due to the fact that you are new to the wiki community. To understand guidelines for posting on the wiki, I suggest that you read Wiki Ethics I see that people are being very careful to address each of your concerns and even follow up on outside resources to ensure that your page is accurate. Now, if it doesn't appear in minutes of meetings, as testimony from valid sources, (though newspaper articles seems to be unacceptable) it is not posted. The truth is as people see and experience it. It may be different from what you think is true, but nevertheless it is a truth. The idea of the wiki is that discussion happens through contributions to pages or even direct conversation through a talk page and the community does benefit. I have met people in our community that I would have never met otherwise. The connections in Davis have blossomed due to the Davis wiki. If you don't want to participate, then you don't have to, but we have been happily engaged in this wonderful process for a while and it is working. - Sharla Cheney Harrington

Shelly: FYI, I've lived in Davis since 1996, and I've lived with or been married to Cecilia since 2000, I've known Bill Ritter since 1998, I was well aware of the controversy at the time, I've heard accounts from at least four members of that HRC. I don't feel you are being honest about what happened in this incident. I don't think you're being honest about why the HRC did not award you or Ellen these five years. I think you were stepped into the HRC fray last month for no reason other than petty vengeance. I was disappoint that as an activist in the gay-lesbian community you have been silent on the police issue as you were silent on the incident involving Robert Russell, a member of the gay community here in Davis who was the target of hate-crimes and who has since left this community because of the failure of the police and DA's office to properly handle the case and continuing harrasment he endured as the result of his sexual orientation.

Why are you guys going after each other when there are bigger things to work on? This is Davis politics at its worst; people with common progressive goals bickering and fighting with each other. Please take a break from editing these pages. We need everyone working together. -JimSchwab

Yeah, I totally agree. The more we talk about this the more ammunition goes to getting rid of the HRC. —SteveOstrowski

OK. I agree. - SharlaHarrington

I'll tell you why Jim, and I respect your point and I will try to tone it down. We do need to be working together, unfortunately, our ability to operate on issues that you care most about—such as the police issues—has been hampered by shutting down the one body affiliated with city government that tried to redress them—the HRC. Shelly was key amongst those like Norb Kumagai in attacking the chair. Unlike Kumagai, I believe Shelly is still in the progressive camp; however, that is not something that will be easily forgiven.—David Greenwald

Never have I seen such a tempest in a teapot. I originally created a page for Shelly and Ellen to let people of the Wiki know of the work they have done for all of the citizens of this town. This nitpicking over every single detail of Shelly's life is so ridiculous, I would just delete the whole page, since I created it, but I suspect it has taken on a life of its own. But I sure have seen a wonderful example of what Elpheba says in "Wicked." — "no good deed goes unpunished." If Shelly and Ellen continue to give to the community as unselfishly as they have in the past, it would greatly surprise me, and the town will be much the worse for it.

I thought once someone removed something for a good reason, it shouldn't just get put back. Is this an exception just for David Greenwald. You said that no one commented so you removed it now I see it's back. Do I have to keep removing it or what? When does this stop and how does one stop it.
This is the sentence I'm talking about Thought this was being checked out. How long does this have to remain up since it seems that no one has come up with a good reason why it should not be removed. When can I remove this statement:
"but the incident had a damaging effect on the commissioner's confidence in Shelly as Chair" Shelly Bailes

*It's an accurate statement Shelly—quit trying to rewrite history to exonerate your past behavior. You didn't resign from the commission because everyone thought you were in the right. To Bev: It's nice that you would create a page in tribute to the good work Shelly and Ellen have done. They have done a lot of great work, but that doesn't mean that some of their less honorable work should be glossed over, especially the misuse of the commission chair for purposes that was unintended. It is rather appalling to me that someone who misused her position would dare take public comment to rip the most recent chair of the HRC whose only crime was pushing an issue that council clearly did not want pushed. An issue you have still failed ot address.

"the most recent chair"? that would be your wife, I guess. No prejudice here, I'm sure.

Ok everyone. I let this sit for a couple days so that people can clear up all the misinformation. I haven't seen anyone do anything except for David what's his name.... And he's having a ball. So if no one is going to help me on this, I guess I'm going to have to do it myself. Anybody have anything to say except David and Sharla? Shelly Bailes

Prose matches the style of all other entries about people (for instance current and past Mayors). Bullets are generally only used for short lists. —jw

I hate it when people say that's the way we always did it. But if it must be done that way then take out the bullets but don't pick and choose the accomplishments. Why not leave them all in? Shelly Bailes

Is David suggesting that it was Bill and Cecilia that didn't allow Ellen to get an award? So why didn't Ellen get an award for 5 years? Shelly Bailes

Nothing in the minutes shows anything except that others were nominated and voted on for the years 2003 & 2004. Ellen's name does not appear in the minutes anywhere I've looked. Even Norbie didn't propose Ellen when he was on the HRC. There were multiple people and groups nominated, some in multiple years. This year, due to the controversy, the City Council gave awards to everyone that was nominated. Maybe that's how it will be done in the future. —SharlaDaly

Excuse me...Bev Sykes nominated both me and Ellen every year for 5 years. So why didn't Ellen get the award? Shelly Bailes

I've told you before—what happened in 2000 and 2001 is the reason that Ellen did not get the award. David

And I'm asking you again....exactly what did Ellen do? Shelly Bailes

My understanding is that the main offender was you, however Ellen did try to organize a letter writing campaing on her behalf—at least according to several people I have spoken to who were on the commission at the time. The general feeling has been that your actions tainted the commission and thus the reason that Ellen did not win. And btw, absent this episode, everyone involved agrees that Ellen was deserving of the award. However, unethical behavior cannot be overlooked. David

I don't know who is giving you this false information but you should check your "sources". It's all lies. There was never a letter writing campaign and Ellen never was involved with the HRC. Shelly Bailes

So numerous people did not write to the HRC at the behest of yourself and Elllen to award Ellen with the award? It's easy enough to prove as all correspondence is public record.

yes I'd like to see where Ellen made a request for herself. If it's so easy prove it. Shelly Bailes

yes as I said before we were both overlooked. Now can anyone tell me why Ellen was overlooked? Shelly Bailes

Ellen may be a bystander in this Sharla. I can do further research into this, but only if something positive will come out of it. As I think more clearly, I wonder if there is a way that all of us, who are on the same side on most things, can come together rather than continue what is a basically a petty fight.—David

Although it is somewhat unbiased now, I don't like the "mean spirited" mentioning on the page. For one thing the proposition was defeated 50.5-49.5 so your basically insulting half of the Yolo County population and how can one really know the motivation of the supporters, voters, and organizers of the Prop 22 campaign. It shouldn't be stated as fact. —SteveOstrowski

To answer Sharla about my not playing well with others. I disagree; I just pick and choose very carefully who I play with. Shelly

I did not mean to suggest that those who voted in favor of Prop 22 were mean spirited but rather that those who wrote the proposition i.e. Pete Knight and his cronies, were mean spirited. I have no doubt that education about who gay people are and what marriage means to them (the same as it means to straight people) will change the hearts and minds of most non-bigoted Americans. Watch for Washington state's decision about marriage for same sex couples tomorrow.

Again, the motivations and political philosophy of the author's of the Proposition is up to speculation and opinion. So I would suggest that it be said that you personally think this way, not stated as a common fact. Since the Proposition is only 14 words I think it would be difficult to prove that it was written in a mean spirited way. —SteveOstrowski

I think we should have a convention about this page and decide paragraph by paragraph, sentence by sentence, word by word how this page should be presented.- JimSchwab

I thought that was what WAS going on. Dissecting every single word, every single phrase, questioning every single thought. I just watch the action here and shake my head. I can't believe that with everything tragic happening in the world that so many people are spending so much time on this on page, which, I would venture to guess, when the "editing" finally ends (if it ever does), nobody will ever look at. I created the page in the first days of the Wiki and until the award was given, I doubt anybody even knew it was here. Don't you people have anything else to do? - BevSykes

This page is pretty unreadable. —PhilipNeustrom

Then don't read it. Shelly
why is it wrong to put this on this page?

If we're done talking about the Shelly Bailes and Ellen Pontac page, I think it is time to delete the entire talk page. -SharlaDaly

This is a Wiki Spot wiki. Wiki Spot is a non-profit organization that helps communities collaborate via wikis.