Air quality district internal emails expose manipulations

November 15, 2011


(Editor’s note: This is the second in a multi-part series about questionable activities of the San Luis Obispo County Air Quality Control District. Part one was Air quality district’s bloated salaries. See Alleged flaws in the study at the bottom of this story)

It sounded like a good idea. Fine the Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area for allowing particulate pollution caused by recreational vehicles. The San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control Board would impose a rule with the fines based on a study of how much dust was raised by the off-roading.

But critics say that the study is flawed.

And emails show that the district has known about the problems with its study. Air quality district air specialist Joel Craig, who authored the bulk of the disputed study, wrote an email in which he said that air quality district board member and Pismo Beach city council member Ed Waage had uncovered mistakes in the study.

“Waage figured it out and as I say embarrassed us to our board,” Craig wrote.

The air quality district relies on fines and fees to cover the expense of its employee payroll. Of the 21 employees at the air quality district, 19 have salaries and benefits that exceed $100,000 a year. The air quality district has been criticized by those who say its focus is raising fees and fines.

For almost a decade, air quality district and county officials have worked to promote an agreement that would subject the recreation area to fines of $1,000 per day if dust blowing from the dunes is not reduced in the future.

The two local public entities claim they have been working in collaboration with state parks to discover if vehicle use on the dunes increases the level of dust downwind at the Nipomo Mesa. However, emails show they were working in tandem to keep state parks from reviewing or conducting research that could disprove the district’s study.

Early on, state parks’ staff and officials said they thought the Phase II study the air quality district created was flawed because of several errors in the district’s methodology. Even so, they agreed to work in cooperation while openly doing additional research.

Larry Allen

In 2010, state parks, San Luis Obispo County and the air pollution board entered into a memorandum of understanding. The three parties agreed to share documents and any data or analysis with each other, according to the agreement.

However, emails between air pollution board director Larry Allen and San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors chairman Bruce Gibson show they were working together to block the state from conducting a third study of PM10 (particulate matter measuring a diameter of 10 microns or less) pollution levels.

After reviewing the district’s Phase II study, the state discovered errors and wanted several changes made. Allen responded with an email to Gibson, who was also the chairman of the air pollution board, in which he contends the agreement does not allow state parks to do research or request that errors in the study get corrected.

“Their edits completely misconstrue the purpose of the memorandum of agreement and seem to be a not-too-subtle attempt to create a third PM10 study rather than develop appropriate mitigation strategies,” Allen said in an email to Gibson. “This type of tactic is their MO – delay, dodge and obfuscate and try to wear us down while they’re spending money and resources right now to collect meteorological data in an effort to challenge our study.”

The district then brought in a technician with ties to Gibson to give the credence of a Ph.D to the study. University of California Davis physics professor Thomas Cahill worked in conjunction with Craig to polish the study.

“By the way, my sister is a friend of Supervisor Gibson,” Cahill said in an email to Craig.

In 2008, Cahill began working to support Craig’s study before a contract to pay him more than a $100,000 was approved and signed.

But because he conducted much of his work before the air pollution district signed his contract, U.C. Davis would not allow Cahill to charge state parks for his efforts. In an email to Craig, Cahill said he planned to manipulate the dates so he could get the state to pay him for his work.

“You will see a number of changes in the text taking out that we did anything before the official start date October 1,” Cahill said in his Nov. 2008 email. “Actually, it was almost all travel and labor – we can hide the date of the labor and I will put the travel onto two weeks of summer money that otherwise I would not have taken. All comes out pretty well.”

Bruce Gibson

Meanwhile, Waage began doing research that he said showed flawed methodology and conclusions in the district’s study.

Allen, along with several San Luis Obispo County supervisors including Adam Hill and Gibson, has repeatedly said that Waage’s claims are unfounded.

However, the authors of the study stated in emails that Waage had discovered some of the study’s flaws.

In 2009, Craig tells Cahill they need to be cautious because with a Ph.D. in chemistry, Waage, was checking the data, methodology and research conclusions.

“This is why we feel we need to be super duper careful double checking everything prior to releasing the report,” Craig wrote.

When Waage first attempted to download the about 300 pages of data gathered for the study, he discovered district staff had taken the excel spread sheet, converted it to a PDF, encrypted it, password protected the document and added “no copying allowed,” Waage said.

Even though Waage and state park officials repeatedly requested to have a workable copy of the data, the district refused to allow easy access to the work. Waage eventually acquired the data which he shared with state parks.

In addition, the emails uncover Gibson’s leadership role in working to keep the public from reviewing the data, research and study methodology.

For example, in late 2009, Gibson forced an already publicized meeting to be canceled and Cahill to change plans to travel to San Luis Obispo.

“Larry was meeting with Supervisor Gibson yesterday and when Gibson found out when the Public Workshops were scheduled he hit the roof,” the Nov. 2009 email from Craig to Cahill said. “He did not like the idea that the public would get a briefing and then the board would not get the study presented to them until two board meetings later. So he insisted that Larry re-schedule the workshops.”

Gibson and Allen have argued that the board’s intention is not to create another stream of revenue but rather to protect public health.

However, questions have been raised about whether data have been manipulated.

Over the summer, an outspoken advocate to protect recreation at the dunes, Kevin Rice, uncovered and went public with the discovery that daily air quality ratings were being manipulated to make pollution levels downwind from the dunes appear unhealthy.

Over a 10 month period beginning in 2010, Rice analyzed air quality forecasts. He found that nearly one-third of the time that the district had been informing the public that pollution levels were at unhealthy levels in the areas around the Oceano dunes, when the air quality was actually at healthy levels. At that rate, 100 days a year are miscoded to appear unhealthy.

At a July 27 district board meeting, Allen confirmed they have been adding five points to the daily air quality index forecast as he and Gibson had earlier agreed to do.

The alterations were a focused effort, Rice said.

“Because they were only manipulating forecasts in Nipomo, it appears this was done to sway residents on the Nipomo Mesa,” Rice said.

Allen did say, however, later in an interview with CalCoastNews, that the district offsets the numbers to conservatively protect public health.

The air quality district board is scheduled to vote on the rule Nov. 16.

If the rule is approved on Wednesday, it is likely state parks will mount a legal challenge. The state has said in letters to the district that the rule must first be legally and scientifically justified before the air quality district can impose fines on state parks.



Alleged flaws in the study

Numerous local and state officials allege that the district’s Phase II study includes numerous flaws because of poor methodology and the manipulation of data.

Air quality district board member and Pismo Beach Councilman Ed Waage contends the study is flawed and wants the inaccuracies corrected.

(1) The study concludes that vehicles on the dunes cause an increase in pollution levels downwind on the Nipomo Mesa.

However, the district’s data shows that on weekdays the larger particulate matter blowing from the dunes is higher than on weekends when there were more vehicles on the dunes.

The district rejected that methodology electing instead to compare the levels of dust blowing on the 50 days with the most vehicles on the dunes to the 50 days with the least, according to the district’s study.

On the lowest use days, having an average of 379 vehicles riding on the dunes, the weather was primarily cold and damp and included eight days of rain.

On the 50 busiest days, when the park saw an average of 3,738 vehicles on the dunes, the weather was primarily sunny and the ground dry making it easier for the wind to pick up dust, Waage said.

“People tend to go to the park when the weather is warmer,” Waage said. “The study ignores rain. The problem is in their methodology.”

(2) The air quality district study assumes that wind speeds measured at the California Department of Forestry fire station are representative of wind speeds at the dunes.

During the past year, state parks has been measuring wind speeds at the dunes and reports speeds 70 percent higher then those measured at the fire station. The fire station stands behind several rows of tall trees.

“Higher wind speeds will have a significant effect on some of the conclusions of the study so it is imperative that the more recent data on wind speeds be used to reevaluate those conclusions,” Waage said.

The district also conducted the PM10 pollution level study at the fire station which sets on Highway 1 in Oceano. Waage, who has a Ph.D. in chemistry, criticizes the district for failing to consider the effect auto emissions had on the higher pollution counts it found at the fire station.

“A comparison of PM10 measurements during the morning commute at 7 a.m. shows higher levels of PM10 on weekdays than weekends,” Waage said. “Since there is more commute traffic on weekdays, this result is an indication that there is a contribution to measured PM10 from vehicle traffic.”

(3) The air quality district proposed a year-long study and then added in an additional month. March and April are windy months causing more dust to blow in the air.

Waage said the study’s additional March skewed the results.

“Using this flawed approach, the study found about 25 percent higher PM10 (particulate matter) on the 50 highest use days compared to the lowest 50 days,” Waage said. “This 25 percent value was used extensively in public presentations by district staff.”

Instead of a program of fees and fines, Waage said he would like to see the adoption of best management practices at the dunes and a program of cooperation between state parks and the air quality district.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

This article and some of the naysayers demonstrate a basic lack of understanding of the overall methodologies used in the study and the results of the more than 2 million data points collected. The APCD has never contended that the particulate generated by the vehicles themselves produces any significant air pollution. This is a fact intentionally ignored by the naysayers. It’s the fact that they disturb the natural hardened crust that would otherwise form on the dunes if they were not disturbed, which allows the wind to carry a larger proportion of particulates downwind onto the Mesa area; much higher than the natural amount that would otherwise be carried off the dunes by the wind. They recognize particulate would come off the dunes whether there was riding or not. They are only mandated by California State law to regulate that difference between the increased amounts coming off the SVRA vs. the normal amounts that naturally come off undisturbed dune areas (“background levels”).

The APCD unequivocally refuted all Mr. Waage’s “arguments” presented above (uncredited) at their Board meeting, showed his lack of understanding of the methodology used and how to derive valid conclusions from the data, and left him with his tail between his legs.

As one of the public speakers at the meeting observed, Mr. Waage gets a free pass here and at his presentations to the Pismo & Grover Beach city councils to basically say whatever he wants with nobody else reviewing his fallacious reasoning or incorrect conclusions, as do none of the related blogged stories here on CCN. It’s a shame that CCN and many of the commenters here have relied on Ed Waage and Kevin Rice’s comments (slorider & to name a few of his commenter profiles) for a (biased) understanding of what the study concluded, rather than reading the study themselves or consulting directly with the APCD in an objective fashion, like a professional reporter would do.

If you care to see the actual truth, and not character assassinations or the bogus claims perpetuated by the many articles and biased uninformed comments regurgitated here at CCN, I encourage you to watch the APCD’s entire Board meeting for yourself. If you only want to watch the part where Waage’s arguments are completely refuted, it starts at 3:43:00. If you’re not interested in the actual facts and valid science behind the study and its conclusions, then nobody can help you.

Who is Insider, an anonymous poster, to castigate CCN and Waage for what appears to be reporting of the facts. How does he explain the email that says Waage figured it out and embarrassed the board? Could this be someone who has been a target in this questionable report? I will listen to the meeting when time allows, but, for now, I’m going to believe who I know to be an honest person and a site who digs for info rather than be nice to public figures, over Insider.

Who are you, “an anonymous poster, to castigate” Insider?

Whether someone is anonymous does not impact the veracity of what they post. Otherwise, we would have to discount 99% of comments posted here.

There are lots of people discussing this who have an agenda, and some have conflicts of interest.

Ed Waage is running for county supervisor, opposing Adam Hill. While I would very much like Hill to be thoroughly tromped in the election, it is clear Ed Waage has much to gain by the publicity of his very vocal and public efforts on behalf of the RV users (abusers, IMO) of the dunes. Waage’s COI involves the potential for financial and power gain.

Kevin Price has the website, which is sponsored by at least one local motorcycle-services shop. His COI is the potential for potential and power gain/loss (if he loses sponsers, he has a financial and power loss).

The Insider, I know nothing about, other than he/she is a very strong advocate for the APCD study. While I appreciate the issues he/she raised about the pro-dune-trashing RV crowd, he does not address any of the sneaky abuses of power folks in the APCD and supervisor Gibson have used to advance their agenda…which appears to be to continue to allow RVs to abuse a very delicate ecosystem, causing irrevocable damage which will have untold consequences in the future, while generating fines that the taxpayers will have to pay, which will support the APCD. The challenges The Insider mounts to the Waage’s study–most are beyond my paygrade to assess. Some appear logical.

However, the fact that, once again, county government is abusing its power in another conflicts-of-interest conspiracy makes me truly ticked off at The Insider (who supports the APCD and its study, apparenjtly) just for that reason alone. It may not be The Insider’s fault, but anybody who attacks those questioning the APCD study without addressing the filth politics associated with it–it’s going to make me ticked off, in general, anyway. It certainly makes me more suspicious of their opinion.

I don’t stand to gain financially or politically by the outcome of this issue, except as do all non-RV-dunes destroying taxpayers who are being forced to pay for these fines. I stand to gain from being able to rest easier, knowing that the unmitigated destruction (for which we, the local taxpayers will financially pay, and for which we, the humans living here now and in the future will also have to pay) of a delicate and unique ecosystem. I stand to gain being able to walk along the beach without having to deal with the RV trash who destroy our local treasure, leaving their destruction and trash behind when they are done.

I don’t know what are the conflicts of interest in the other posters posting on this subject.

If the RV-dune-destroying crowd is so dammed hot on destroying the dunes environment, both now and for future generations, then they should pay for the entire costs–past, present, and future–of it. Studies need to be done to determine the REAL costs of allowing RV’s to destroy the dunes’ unique ecosystem, and that includes the $$$trillions it would cost to restore it once the RV crowd is done destroying it, reimbursement for all costs the taxpayers have had to pay up to now for the RV crowd’s destruction of the dunes.

Once that figure is ascertained, then parcel it up into portions of 52 per year. Then when the destructive, environmentally brain-dead RV crowd shows up during a certain week, they will pay the average costs, per day of that week, to destroy the dunes.

If those businesses who profit from the RV crowd destroying our dunes are worried about losing income, then they can subsidize what the RV crowd has to pay in the TRUE COSTS of their destruction of the dune environment. It they aren’t willing to pay for the true costs of that destruction (which supports their business), then they need to shut down their businesses and get into a more honest line of work…one that doesn’t force taxpayer welfare to keep them afloat.

I’m sick of the RV crowd getting basically taxpayer welfare to support their destructive “recreation,” from which a few local businesses benefit–only because they don’t have to pay the true costs and get taxpayer welfare to keep their destructive businesses from closing.

Let’s see how many of them want to destroy our unique and irreplaceable environment at the dunes when they aren’t getting to suck it free from the taxpayers’ teat.

No more free rides, especially when the true costs are so huge. Pay for the destruction, or get the he** off of our dunes and beaches.

Error in my above post. Mea culpa.

Fifth paragraph should read:

Kevin Price has the website, which is sponsored by at least one local motorcycle-services shop. His COI is the potential for financial and power gain/loss (if he loses sponsers, he has a financial and power loss).


Don’t be a ditz. On top of not even spelling the name correctly you have ZERO facts straight. I had to check my own web site to even see what the hell you’re trying to sell (which is EXACTLY why anonymous posters have ZERO credit or veracity).

So, what sponsor is the “one local motorcycle-services shop”??? I would name it for you, but I want YOU to name it so that I can point out how ignorant and wrong you are. So, go ahead.

And, how much sponsorship (“power gain/loss”) do you think that sponsor brings? Again, I want YOU to speculate—since you are so good at it—and then I will again point out how ignorant and wrong you are.

WHY DON’T YOU TELL US YOUR NAME, MARY? I’ll tell you why you will not: It’s because anonymity means you can speculate, spread lies and make up slander. That is precisely why anonymous posters have ZERO credibility or veracity. You see, when people know who you are, you can’t just blather a bunch of B.S. about other people because you will be personally held accountable for your lies.

So, get informed, get a clue, or get the he** off the Internet with your ignorant lies, Mary.

Best wishes,

Kevin P. Rice

(805) 602-2616

LOL. Love the attacks on another poster’s “anonymous” status.

What a fool. You know, Kevin, you are really, really clueless.

Well, Mary, I’d aver quite the opposite. You are posting in foolish ignorance. You have no knowledge of what you are advocating.

Further, anonymity is the shield of a coward or a liar, or both. Which fits you?

You might want to consider the old adage about those who make assumptions.

Mary, You are lacking knowledge and facts in this instance. Unless you’re willing to put your name and reputation on the line, just knock it off.

A little testy isn’t this?, somebody makes a few misinformed statements, oh well, there’s no need to wage a personal character attack on them, just correct the facts and set things straight If Mary gave you her real name what would do, sue for slander or libel, geez dude.

Your obviously a politically involved and pretty sharp individual who is passionate about his issues and hope others will follow and support your fight, but when you go off like this on others its unprofessional and you begin to be no better than the Adam Hills of SLO county telling others to shut up and your better than that.

Nothing personal but the last paragraph made me laugh “So, get informed, get a clue, or get the he** off the Internet with your ignorant lies”

It is the internet after all, 100% truth in what one reads here is an oxymoron id say.

Personal character attack? That’s not possible to an anonymous ghost. “Get the he** off…” — a retort to the O.P. if you read it.

Are you defending the personal character attacks of the anonymous poster? Please explain the rationale behind that. Do you believe one should have the right to confront a lying accuser? Why or why not?

You know, I suppose I’m growing a bit tired of ignorants posting lies about which they have no knowledge and won’t put their name behind. If the anonymous are so credible, then put your name to your words. My name is associated with every one of my posts and I stand behind every claim I make, and I will openly debate all issues any day.

Trillions to restore. Do you know what a “trillion” dollars looks like? It’s 1000 billion dollars. To give you some “perspective” the three tunnels that form the Chunnel which connects England to France, under the English Channel, cost 30 Billion in adjusted dollars. Let’s take your estimate of “trillions” and reduce it to two. So you’re claiming it will cost 67 times as much to clean up a stretch of beach a few miles long as it did to complete the world’s most expensive tunnel? Whaaaa ha ha ha, you greenies are a laugh a minute. Anyway gotta run, I’m reading the latest leaked Email from the climate fraud crowd.

HAHA!! Good catch! More ridiculous: they can’t even point out anything that has been “destroyed”. IT’S SAND. Vehicles have been out there for 100 years and it’s still there.

Wonder how much it would cost to remove all the houses and roads in the south county and restore the natural environment? Haven’t heard one enviro volunteer for that yet. Such hypocrites.

You are the one who is uninformed and ridiculous.

You are also being dishonest in implying that the current level of RV destruction on the beach has been occuring for over a 100 years.

You also show your ignorance when you think 100 years is anything more than the length of time it takes to snap your fingers, when applied to evolution ecology time spans.

Your red-herring statement about houses and roads is noted. This discussion is about the destruction of the unique dunes environment by RVers who are not paying the true, long-term costs for the destruction they are causing.

If you don’t like the houses and roads being there, start a movement to tear them down. Tearing down houses is not part of what the APCD/County conspiracy is about at this time…it’s about manipulations to provide fake numbers which will result in air-quality fines, which taxpayers will ultimately have to pay.

WHAT destruction? WHERE?

And why is all the housing and road development not an issue, but leaving the beach open and natural is an issue? Make sense, please.

The full, long-term impact of the destruction the RVers are doing now will not be know for centuries.

Ecosystems do not respond well to major changes occurring in them, especially if the changes occur over a relatively extremely short time period. As the environment changes, the species living there often become stressed, some to the point of extinction.

There is a basic rule of thumb about a species going extinct. For every species that goes extinct, the loss of that species will trigger two more species to go extinct. It’s like a giant pyramid scheme in which no one lives.

We now see this process playing out in Salton Sea, which is near terminal, and when it goes, many bird species who migrate in the Pacific Flyway will also go extinct. This will have a profound impact on the Western Hemisphere.

So, yes, I would estimate that the full costs–not just some paid-for judge’s decision to plant a few bunches of beach grass and the problem will be solved–will end up in the trillions.

I’m not saying that trillions will be spent, because judges who make decisions over environmental lawsuits tend to be as clueless about the need to keep ecosystems intact and the need for humans to repair and replace what they destroy.

However, if RVers at our dunes were to have to pay the full price of the cost of restoring what they so cluelessly destroy, all in the name of getting their jollies in a very unique ecosystem, it would be, in my estimation, in the trillions. This is based on the millions it takes to restore even a very small project.


The Salton sea was created by a 1906 levee break that flooded the Imperial valley .

Yes, correct! So easily is the ‘veracity’ of our anonymous poster disproven.

I tend to be fact driven not partisan or particulate propagandizing.

Haven’t seen you around for a long time. I can see you haven’t changed any though, once again you’ve said it like a GOB spin artist. Next………..

So, if it’s not the actual dust kicked up by the ATV’s they are concerned with, how comwe they compare high traffic days to low traffic days?

You make a highly intelligent query!

The study’s Executive Summary specifically says it is NOT kicked up dust. That is the layman myth propagated by media that does not dig into details. In fact, I contacted the Tribune once and they didn’t even have a copy of the study–the Executive Summary was everything they read!

To come to that conclusion the study attempted to correlate high traffic days with high dust days. There was a small correlation. But when you look at weather for the low traffic days you find that it was rainy or wet by nearly exactly the same amount.

The bottom line is the study FAILED to account for rain and wet weather which is PRECISELY the conditions that people don’t recreate in the dunes. Instead of realizing that weather is a major confounding factor, the study claimed a small correlation to high vehicle days. Completely egregious junk science.

The super-fine dust which forms the crust, from my medical understanding of how the respiratory system works, is what causes so much havoc in humans, especially those who have respiratory issues already.

More RV traffic means more areas of the crust are going to be destroyed, which means, more humans are going to pay the price of damage to their respiratory system just so the destructive RV crowd can get their jollies in such a unique and important environment.

Having listened, I disagree with your conclusions. Waage, as well as other qualified speakers, were articulate in their stated desire for more, and credible, research. Are you and the yes votes afraid of what they’ll find? Some residents from the Mesa, many of whom are newer to the area, claimed effects from dust. I have to ask if Trilogy etal made the dust disclosure to you when you bought. Of course you’ll make it when you sell if the rule doesn’t solve your problems. That’s what the “naysayers” want…..credible information that can actually lead to solutions. But the board bought into a flawed report and may get flawed results. They’ll be the ones to pay in the long run. But I guess they think too much knowledge is a bad thing. Huh?

Are you qualified to assess the technical arguments put forward by both Waage and the APCD/county?

Except for the claims related to horticulture and soil science, I’m not, and I have a lot of science in my background.

I would very much like to unequivocally support The Insider’s argument, because–in part– it supports my anti-dune-destruction opinions. But the evidence used to make that argument–the APCD studies–and the way the APCD/county has handled it politically, weakens the credibility of the study itself.

However, as someone who tries to be a critical thinker, I cannot because, a) I don’t have the knowledge to compare the technical claims of The Insider and the APCD/county as opposed to the RV/Slorider crowd, and, b) the APCD and the county have used such typically filth-politics to advance their agenda on this issue.

I also suspect anyone who supports the APCD/county opinion who does not acknowledge that their position is now undercut because of the unethical and dishonest means they used to construct the argument supporting their opinion.






Whose research would you prefer? An organization that can’t count how many months it included in its study of OHV air pollution, or an organization that has its own satellite system to chart wind systems?!

And isn’t it strange state of affairs when the rumored political candidates from our two major political parties are so bad that Ron Paul finally has some traction in his campaign.


I agree that soil scientists have answers–which they have already given.

I don’t think having one from the USDA would necessarily be a good thing. They have a conflict of interest because they are employed by the government. Unfortunately, IMO, we cannot trust our government now. Therefore, people who depend on government funding for their livelihood carry suspicion of their findings.

It looks to me like the APCD and Larry Allen are running amuck. I don’t think we need an overpaid, bloated and draconian agency to properly enforce the air pollution regulations. This is SLO County for crying out loud, I don’t see a lot of polluting heavy industry around here.

I think we need an agency to monitor air pollution and enforce regulations. I don’t think the current version we have locally can be trusted.

I think we first have to make the government agency work as it is supposed to, THEN assess if it is needed or not.

All too often, when there are problems with government agencies, the knee-jerk reaction is to say “close down the agency!”

This is like having a car that ran well when you had your old mechanic dealing with the repairs, but when you had to switch to a new mechanic and the car started malfunctioning. At that point do you say “Obviously I don’t need a car at all because this one no longer works!”? No. You either make an assessment based on when the car was working well, or get the car fixed so it was working well, as it once did. THEN you decide if you need a car or not. Don’t decide you don’t need a car if your only reason is the one you currently own is no longer running well.

A number of off topic trolling questions will not be answered as they have been deleted .

CCN presents and curates news, CCN is not the news.

Editorial decisions are not the topic here.

This is about dirt in the air and the brave men who battle the wind for handsome salaries. right?

one more time

If you have a question about moderation use Email

Bill Benica is the original “hometown radio”. He was around before Dave and was giving local issues a place to be discussed long before Dave. That being said, Dave has a great program. This isn’t a contest. I don’t care whether its Dave, Bill or Andy, it’s all about the truth being exposed to the biggest audience possible.

Karen hasn’t been on prime time at KVEC for month’s now. She was going on at 4PM or 4:30 just like she went on Andy Caldwell today. There were a lot of posts here earlier about Congalton, they weren’t very nice and apparently, Karen was nice enough to delete them. I know I saw the posts and they were getting deleted as fast as they were going up. As I recall, you’re the one that started it.

It would behoove those who send emails to consider such emails WILL undoubtedly be released for public review at some point in the future.

Will the lies and blatant manipulations in government agencies EVER stop?

I support Karen no matter what radio talk show she speaks from. She and CCN do more for our “need to know” than anyone else in our local media. Thank you Karen and CCN!

Hmm, I don’t know anything about this ‘Dave’ drama but his show is pretty informative regarding local issues. But this medium and Dave’s are completely different.