Thank you to the editors for that explanation.

For anyone to suggest that there is "a purge" of women in Woodside government boards is absurd. In the case of the ASRB, one member left over ethics violations and a second due to repeated complaints of overreaching on design reviews (and with a new Town Council she wasn't reappointed). I can't comment on the third.

I found the article on line but did not read the comments because they were already closed so pardon me for being a little late to the issue, and hopefully what I am going to say will be acceptably civil. The article is completely irresponsible journalism. What is the Almanac editor thinking to allow so much content of an article to be based on the opinions and comments of an unnamed former volunteer. Who cares? This unnamed person whose opinions seem to hold so much interest for the Almanac’s writer is simply a prop for his (the writer’s) personal agenda about Woodside, a Town for which he has often expressed distaste. (And an attempt to try and drive advertising ratings for the Almanac by sewing dissension in our community).

It’s not Saudi Arabia - women can run if they want to, and when we want to we will.

"The gender of review-board applicants "corresponds to the hostile culture described above and the advent of allowing certain individuals to conduct public shaming of women applicants in order to sway the council to appoint their male cohorts," the former volunteer said."

That's a very serious allegation. Do you have any proof? If it occurred in public then there should be plenty of proof.

The “Editor” wrote:

“[The] thesis was supported by several other Woodside residents who didn't want their comments used at all so as to avoid being attacked”

Please explain. These alleged “supporters” are unwilling even to speak anonymously in order to provide legitimate counter-arguments or evidence? I think a fair translation of that sentiment would be “I don’t want to speak because I have no legitimate counter-argument or evidence.”

Gee, Dave, did it never occur to you that your source insisted on anonymity simply because he/she knew that the claims would immediately be shot full of holes by all the citizens who know exactly what happened and why? After all, all of this happened in public with minutes taken. There is no mystery about what the women in question did and why they no longer hold office.

Prior to this the town conducted a detailed anonymous survey of people who actually appeared before the ASRB and the resilt was resoundingly negative. Those survey results are in the public domain and referenced ASRB behavior at a time when the three women in question dominated the board. This was a situation where proactive citizens saw or experienced a significant problem where citizens were being abused and took action to correct it through exercise of the mechanisms provide by town ordinances and the democratic process. Everyone involved in that effort should be proud of themselves for performing this public service.

This article and the comments above are in of themselves a proof that it is long past time for Wodside to be covered by a different reporter. Having PV and Woodside covered by someone who has firmly demonstrated repeatedly that he is biased and motivated only to attend council meetings and to listen to a few like-minded malcontents is bad for the communities and bad for the Almanac.

What do we have to do to see a change in staff?

"What do we have to do to see a change in staff?"

Buy the Almanac

I've met David Boyce and I have always been impressed with his professionalism and journalism.

That said, I have to admit this story is sketchy and I wonder how it made the grade for publication. It is loosely sourced and the claims are not reasonable or substantiated.

I'm not for changing reporters, I'm for responsible journalism. In this particular story, I think The Almanac fell a bit short of its usual standards.

Just a cautionary note. We all fall short from time to time.

I am tired of Woodside and Portola Valley getting second-rate converse by the Almanac. And when issue are covered, they are usually shoddily addressed and written as is the case with this article. Therefore, I am considering creating a company to locally cover Woodside and Portola Valley separate from the almanac. Hopefully this will put a dent in their business and their very poor journalism

Pogo must not have read or doesn’t remember Boyce’s attempt to pin the Chris Shaw for Council campaign with violating federal campaign finance regulations.

When I complained directly to Boyce about this article, saying essentially what has been said by others here, his response was not to explain his rationale or defend his thinking, but rather his entire response was:

“You should monitor yourself for an outsized sense of entitlement and consider a 12-step program, perhaps Rage-aholics.”

Sounds like a schoolyard taunt to me.

Does that impress you, Pogo, as the writng of a “responsible and professional journalist”? Could you remind us of any specific impressive and professIonal journalistic accomplishments? It’s all in the archives, so show us some imoressive and redeeming writing, and let us compare it to that of the Almanac writers covering our neighboring cities.

Mr. Watkins -

Your comment only provides further evidence that Mr. Boyce is usually both responsible and professional.

Noting George Bernard Shaw's caution about wrestling, I will have no further responses to your direct questions.

The prior comments and criticisms about this story are sufficient.

So, Pogo, you are anonymous, and you make a claim for which you can offer no evidence.

Your similarity to Boyce’s source is remarkable.

awatkins:

you're also anonymous. Full name please.

I think everyone knows who the "anonymous" source is.

How funny -- the anonymous poster wants others to state their own names.

Pot, meet kettle.