Thank you to the writer for a very well researched and documented article concerning the fate of the Talent Food Pantry. I have commented in the group, Talent, Oregon and will repeat my opinion and facts here.
Well, when Darby wants to ax something she doesn't like, she doesn't do a very good job of hiding it, (i.e. skatepark, Little League Fields, and now the ACCESS Talent Food Pantry). To date, as was promised, the public has not been allowed to input as they move forward developing the occupancy rules. Darby seems overly concerned about the fact that ACCESS food pantries are normally allowed residences in cities rent free as has been the case in the basement at the old Town Hall. Just to point out a couple of contradictions; Darby makes a point of saying the pantry was not evicted from the Town Hall, however in the plans for the remodel of the hall, the pantry space in the basement does not show them and to date they have not been invited to re-occupy the basement they have been established in for many years after the remodel.
Secondly, her concern that she thinks the pantry should start paying rent, contradicts her lack of concern for her favorite special interest groups, i.e. Rogue Action Center and Rogue Climate who have been solely occupying the city owned property at 102 Home Street, a small house with garage at the rental agreement rate of $1.00 per month I think since the fire. They also have an office rent-free in The Shoppes in Phoenix (according to Stuart Warren and Sarah Westover, then of RAC). Darby's other special interest groups (Sweet Beet, and Long Term Fire Recovery Group) occupy space in other city owned property at below-market rates. Not to mention her own private interest groups she occupies in city owned space.
Thirdly, isn't city finances something the City Manager and Finance Director should be evaluating? It's their responsibility, not the mayor's. And why is Darby running city business and soliciting public input on social media groups she controls who gets to join?
It's an old trick of Darby's to mislead the public into thinking their water fees will have to go up if she doesn't get her way. She manufactured this misinformation when the skatepark budget all the sudden gets transferred to a water meter upgrade project (which the funding was not in fact needed after all). She even slandered me personally as she conducted a poll of her own followers claiming I pushed for the skatepark repair (which had already been approved and funded) and this would cause city residents' water bills to skyrocket.
It is absolutely in violation of state and city laws for city officials to conduct city business on social media, yet she persists in spite of the recently updating of the city's own rules as well. So, can we all agree that Darby doesn't want a food pantry in Talent? There are no other pantry services other than ACCESS. Rogue Food Unites made it very clear to me when I asked if they would support the Talent Food Pantry that they were not a pantry.
So, I would suggest that the public not wait to be invited to give their input. I would suggest contacting the City Manager who council directed to write the guidelines for occupancy of the new building which will be owned by you, the taxpayers. Thank you.
The article contains several misleading claims and omits key context from recent public meetings.
No tenants have been selected for the Community Resource Center. The City is still developing criteria and exploring how to cover shared costs for the building. Discussions about rent and sustainability are happening in public meetings, which are recorded and accessible to the community.
Public engagement has not been blocked. Meetings have been open, and agendas have been posted. Suggestions for broader outreach, like surveys or forums, can be part of the process, but it is inaccurate to claim that the public has been shut out entirely.
The article presents speculation as fact and uses selective quotes to support a predetermined narrative. That approach does not promote transparency or accountability. It creates confusion and misrepresents what is actually being discussed.
A more accurate public conversation should include full context and focus on solutions rather than assumptions.
Well hello there anonymous person named Mayor Darby Ayers-Flood! The thread is missing the other message you wrote to me. Here it is:
Talent Council Watch Report
Anonymous replied to your comment on A Closer Look at the Mayor's Push to Replace ACCESS .
There are a number of misleading claims here, both in this comment and in the TCW article it's responding to, that deserve correction. First, the claim that the Mayor is trying to replace ACCESS is false. No tenants have been selected. No one has been excluded. What was discussed, openly in a public study session, was how to fairly cover building costs for all users of the space. That is not political scheming, it is a standard and necessary part of managing a shared public facility. Second, ACCESS’s long-standing policy of not paying rent is well understood. The discussion was not about removing them, it was about figuring out how to balance costs when one tenant cannot contribute. That is a valid conversation to have, especially if the goal is to support the pantry long-term without putting the entire financial burden on other groups. Third, the claim that the public has been shut out is simply not true. The tenant criteria have been discussed in multiple public meetings, all properly noticed and recorded. If someone wants broader outreach or additional tools like town halls or surveys, they should propose it. Pretending that no one is allowed to participate is misleading. The repeated accusation that City officials are violating state law by posting on social media is also inaccurate. Sharing updates or summaries is not the same as deliberating or making decisions. That distinction matters, and it is not being acknowledged here. Finally, the TCW article is not neutral reporting. It makes assumptions, skips important context, and reads as if the outcome is already decided and the author is just filling in the blanks. That is not how public trust is built. It is how it is eroded. There is plenty of room for debate about how to structure occupancy at the Community Resource Center. But let's have that conversation based on facts, not speculation and spin.
To the admins of this group, can you please instruct me on how to block an anonymous account? I refuse to take Darbys bait. Liars don't deserve the dignity of a response from me. I will add just one question to her though: Hey Darby: if it is not against State ORS laws and your own Council Rules for city government officials to discuss city business on social media, then why are you posting anonymously? One more, Why aren't these laws posted on the Talent City Website? Thanks.
It appears Clarkie has blocked my account, but their comments are still visible when I'm not logged in. To be clear I'm not the Mayor and I do not know Clarkie. Just an anonymous reader, similar to the author of this newsletter, whose anonymity does not seem to be an issue unless someone is presenting a different point of view.
Posting anonymously is not a tactic. It is a choice, and one this publication uses freely. If it is acceptable for the author, it should be acceptable for others participating in the conversation.
If blocking someone helps avoid disagreement, that is up to you. But disagreement is not lying, and calmly pointing out misleading claims should not be treated like a personal attack.
The concerns raised were about how the article framed events, skipped context, and pushed conclusions that are not supported by the full record. That is not accountability, it is narrative shaping.
Public conversations should focus on facts, not assumptions about who is speaking, especially when you can watch the full video of these meetings and arrive at your own conclusion rather than reading an "article" that has a clear agenda and is filled with opinion.
Also its hilarious to pull a comment that I clearly deleted and edited then re-post it then block me all in one swift move. Solid civil discourse...
This comment was sent to my email from TCW but I can't see it here for some reason, maybe it was deleted?
Talent Council Watch replied to your comment on A Closer Look at the Mayor's Push to Replace ACCESS .
This comment sounds like it was written by the unpaid staff of an authoritarian dictator in a communist country who wants people to think it's actually a democracy, lol. Sorry but people can talk about whatever they want, however they want. Also every single thing you said is either untrue, makes no sense, or doesn't apply anything we actually wrote (sometimes all 3 at once!)
My Response.
Interesting that a request for factual accuracy gets compared to propaganda from a dictatorship.
This is a public conversation. If criticism is fair game, so is correcting misinformation. Dismissing any disagreement as “authoritarian” while claiming to support accountability is ironic, to say the least.
Nothing in the original comment said people couldn’t talk about what they want. It pointed out that the article presents speculation as fact and omits relevant public information. That remains true, regardless of how loudly it is mocked.
A serious publication should be able to handle disagreement without resorting to name-calling. If your goal is transparency, then you should welcome scrutiny, not shut it down with jokes.
Hi Anon, author of the post here. I’m sorry this newsletter does not say the things you think it should say in the ways you think they should be said. That probably is not going to change. Also, I don't have any control over who blocks who in the comments but TCW does not block anyone who wants to share their opinion, even if we strongly disagree. I believe we all have a right to be heard on topics related to the town we live in, so you are welcome to say what you want, anonymously or otherwise. (But also you should expect jokes in return, because I like making jokes). This is not a post in a Talent Facebook group, I am never going to manipulate a comment section in my favor to shut down dissent. And I very much welcome scrutiny on my articles. I have always welcomed factual corrections and have said that multiple times. And yes I did delete my own reply comment to you. After I saw your next comment come in I realized you were not at a place where you would be able to engage with what I said in a coherent way, so I deleted it. I did not know you would then get it in an email! My bad on that.
The problem with your criticism so far is that you’re accusing me of a lot of stuff without actually pointing out where I did any of what you’re saying I did. I actually spend a huge amount of time fact-checking what I write here. And like I said, I am very open to fact corrections. But you’re not actually correcting anything, you’re just declaring that it’s all more of that oft-cited Misinformation that’s always undermining the Talent government’s good work. You’re allowed to do that of course, and I’m allowed to ignore it and/or laugh about it.
If you were instead to point out exactly where I got something wrong, and you could provide me with any backup that it was in fact wrong, I would correct it, but your complaints about my writing have no specificity for me to address. Throwing around word salad accusations around isn’t going to do much to correct the record if it’s indeed incorrect, know what I mean?
For example, you said: “The article presents speculation as fact and uses selective quotes to support a predetermined narrative” and “The concerns raised were about how the article framed events, skipped context, and pushed conclusions that are not supported by the full record” and then you said it “omits relevant public information.”
How am I supposed to address those issues if you don’t tell me what you’re talking about exactly? I’m actually quite sensitive to the claim that I’m presenting speculation as fact because I try very hard to avoid doing that, so please do tell me where I did that so I can review my framing.
Please feel free to make your case against my arguments. You will not be blocked for having a different opinion here. I just encourage you to do so by referring to what I have actually written and with more specific claims if you expect me to address them.
Thanks for the reply. Since you asked for specifics, here they are. This is not about tone or disagreement. It is about the difference between fair critique and misleading framing.
There are several issues with the article, starting with the way it presents speculation as fact and leaves out key context:
No one “tried to replace” ACCESS. The April 2 discussion was about how to fairly cover building costs if a tenant cannot pay rent. Multiple Councilors, including the Mayor, discussed ways to support ACCESS, including partnerships, co-tenancy, and creative solutions. That part of the conversation is entirely omitted.
Rent-sharing was always part of the plan. The original grant application submitted to Business Oregon included projected rental revenue. This was public, anticipated, and consistent with past conversations. Suggesting it was a surprise or last-minute pivot is not accurate.
The article omits important voices. Councilor Medina and others expressed support for ACCESS and raised ideas to keep them in the building. Their perspectives are missing, which shifts the tone from reporting to narrative-building.
The central argument relies on assuming intent. The article frames the Mayor as attempting to install a preferred nonprofit in ACCESS’s place, without presenting any evidence that such a group has been identified or approached. That is not a factual claim, it is conjecture.
This approach contradicts TCW’s own stated values. The About section says TCW will not make unwarranted accusations, will engage in good faith, and will distinguish fact from opinion. This article makes accusations without evidence, omits key facts, and presents opinion as certainty.
You also asked why the response used phrases like “selective quotes” or “framing assumptions.” These are not vague critiques. They are based on clear editorial choices in your piece that misrepresent a public process as a backroom decision.
And as someone who watches these meetings, either live or via the recordings, what consistently comes through is not malice or scheming. It is elected officials and staff having thoughtful, sometimes messy, but genuine discussions about how to solve real problems. That reality does not fit the tone or implications of this article.
Finally, following this week’s Council meeting, it seems the central premise of the article is now moot. What remains is an editorial built on assumptions that were never supported by the full record.
Thank you for providing your concerns and feedback more specifically. I do appreciate you taking the time to lay out all your objections. Even though I disagree with you I am glad to see dialogue happening. Overall it sounds to me like you are taking issue with opinionated criticism of Talent City Council more than anything else.
Also let me add that the criticism in the article is directed entirely toward the Mayor, not Council members. That isn’t always the case in the TCW Report, but it definitely is in this instance. I don’t think the Council as a whole or any members did anything wrong here, not in this meeting or the following one on this agenda item. I agree that they’re just trying to figure out the best way to make the situation work. My issue is with the Mayor trying to convince Council to make rent a minimum requirement for food distribution, and I am concerned by it enough to dig into the whole sequence of events to see what might be happening behind the scenes in relation to her stance in that Study Session.
"No one “tried to replace” ACCESS and “Rent sharing was always the plan” - I think you’re forgetting the first approximately 30 minutes of that study session in which the Mayor proposed adding the minimum requirement, the “4th bullet point” as it were, that the tenant be able to cover their share of the costs. She was not absolutely not arguing for a rent sharing model for most of the meeting - the idea of making it a high priority instead of a minimum requirement came only after input from others, most convincingly from the City Manager. Please read over the first set of quotes from the Mayor in my article again. Much of her speaking time was spent on how she does not support rent-sharing because it would be unfair to other tenants. She conceded by the end of the meeting to only prioritize rent instead of require it, and that she would be okay with rent sharing options only on the condition that no rent-paying org could be found to apply for the space. I genuinely cannot understand how anyone could argue that she did not try to replace ACCESS with an org that would pay rent when that is absolutely exactly what she tried to do, albeit unsuccessfully. What am I missing here?
“The original grant application submitted to Business Oregon included projected rental revenue. This was public, anticipated, and consistent with past conversations. Suggesting it was a surprise or last-minute pivot is not accurate.” - When was the rental revenue budget ever made public? In which public meeting was this rent-sharing plan discussed? Given what I brought up in my previous point, if distributing ACCESS’s rent to other tenants was always the plan like you say it was (I am unsure how you would know that unless you were part of a Council discussion that was not made public?) then how was the Mayor trying to turn rent into a minimum requirement (aka replace ACCESS) not both a pivot and a surprise? By your own logic, if rent sharing was the original plan as you say, then the mayor’s minimum requirement suggestion was in fact a change from that plan, correct? Which is exactly what I said in the post. I never said rent sharing was a big surprise, in fact most of us always assumed that’s how this would play out. I said that the Mayor recommending a minimum requirement over a rent share scenario was a surprise and I maintain that nothing I wrote in relation to that was inaccurate.
Can you see why this all raises suspicions about what went down with this? Don’t you think we have a right to ask questions when something is as murky as this is and there’s a 1.5 million dollar grant and property purchase at stake? The Mayor has no one to be accountable to except for us, the voters. There is no agency to complain to when she bullies people off of Facebook, no one who will censure her when she misleads us about what she’s doing or when she orchestrates outcomes in private meetings. The only recourse we have is to make other people aware of it, talk about it, and then vote accordingly. We are taking advantage of that recourse.
Contrary to how you make it sound, I didn’t make any radical claims or wild unsupported accusations at all, I provided documented evidence that pointed to something interesting happening behind the scenes and I proposed some possibilities for what it could all mean, and I did that in a critical voice while even reminding the reader that it was only an opinion. I do not believe I mischaracterized that opinion as fact or certainty. If anything I said could be even be construed as an accusation, then at the very least it was neither unsupported nor unwarranted. I didn’t name the organization because I found no documented proof that one has been selected. An unwarranted accusation would have been to name the organization and declare that the Mayor is scheming to get them in the building without any proof. But I didn’t do that. I presented evidence, the Mayor’s own words and City documents, that suggested something is off and then presented my view of what that thing could be. I even footnoted that as an opinion. Not sure what else I could have done other than just not writing the article. Do you really think it’s not okay for citizens to be critical of their government and that they should not speculate on what it’s up to? If so, I hope you’re not on or planning to run for Council! This is all basic free speech stuff, not even controversial (outside of Talent, anyway).
This is a watchdog publication, not a City of Talent press release, not the RV Times. TCW Report is a kind of citizen journalism called Investigate Commentary, which uses documented facts, public records, and statements made by officials to analyze and speculate about what is happening in our government. We’re not trying to serve as a neutral news source and we certainly don’t claim to represent all sides equally. Our purpose, my purpose in writing and the purpose of those who help me gather information and provide ideas and feedback, is to diligently scrutinize the actions of our Mayor and City Council, ask pertinent questions, and offer informed commentary, especially on matters that aren’t receiving much attention or when the Mayor has put so much spin on a narrative that it’s impossible for regular people to know what’s really going on.
TCW does have a point of view, yes. Our stance is that our Mayor and her Council, specifically the various Council groupings that have served under this Mayor since January of 2021, have tended to get away with a lot of stuff that just doesn’t seem right (‘right’ meaning ethical, transparent, honest, accountable) to many of us out here watching and reading. Trust me, there are a lot of people in Talent who are confused, frustrated, and looking for answers, it’s not just us. And yeah TCW does have an agenda, it’s to raise the level of integrity displayed by our Mayor and City Council. So to that goal I am going to continue to build narratives, speculate, assume, and have opinions, but I am going to do that all based on documented evidence, not just rumors. That is the whole point of this thing. I hope these clarifications can better inform your assessment of this newsletter from here on out.
Appreciate the response, but this still twists itself into the same knot as the article, all speculation, selective framing, and big assumptions dressed up as “just asking questions.” Honestly, you'd have better luck opening a pretzel factory than running a "watchdog" blog.
Let’s be real, the article’s main claim was that the Mayor tried to replace ACCESS with another org, and now Council has removed the rent requirement entirely. That alone makes the whole premise irrelevant. Yet instead of acknowledging that, this reply doubles down, defends the original framing, and then admits it's built on speculation and narrative-building. At the same time, it criticizes anyone who questions that spin as somehow being pro-secrecy or anti-transparency.
You can't have it both ways. If this is meant to be “investigative commentary,” it should still be grounded in fact. Instead, what’s presented here is a string of assumptions supported by selective quotes, ignoring everything that contradicts the story being told. Meanwhile, Council meetings, the actual public record, are fully open, recorded, and show people trying to work through a hard issue with no malice or hidden agenda.
Calling that process shady while defending anonymous speculation as accountability journalism is a stretch. And honestly, if the standard is going to be “anything could be happening behind the scenes,” then no amount of public transparency will ever be enough.
Looking forward to the next blog post about the next “massive controversy.”
Ahhhh ok, I see what’s going on here. That last line of your comment was the clincher. Your interest in this isn’t about getting to the truth, it’s to defend City Council while preemptively discrediting whatever might come from TCW in the future knowing that it will continue to be a critical source of information about Talent government. Which is fine, you can do that. I’m a big fan of free speech, although I do wish you had something more substantive to offer than platitudes. It sounds to me like you can’t refute the facts I’ve presented in support of my argument nor any of the questions I’ve raised, so you’re just trying to invalidate the style of writing itself. To be honest your accusations don’t make a ton of sense to me, not in relation to what I’ve actually written anyway, but I didn’t take debate in high school so maybe that’s on me.
I do know what ad hominem is though! I can definitely recognize that when I see it.
I maintain that my commentary is grounded in documented fact from the very sources you mention, and that there is no publicly available documentation that contradicts what I have presented here. If there is please feel free to share it with me. I am always ok with correcting a fact I got wrong. But you’re not correcting my facts, you’re correcting my opinion with your own opinion.
Perhaps you don’t understand what I am actually arguing? Which again isn’t even about the Council you’re unnecessarily defending, because I believe as a group they’ve handled this situation pretty well. Changing course after public pushback was wise and in line with the sentiment around town, and the suggestion to bring the tenant final decision back to Council for transparency and accountability was also a very smart call. My post and my comments are about what the Mayor’s rent requirement (then rent priority) proposal at the Study Session might be telling us about how her administration operates and what it might mean about the grant that was funded, given what we know from public records. It is absolutely not about the Council being “shady” about the food distribution topic, not at all.
When it comes down to it though, I am allowed my opinion and you’re allowed your opinion that I should not be expressing my opinion. Great. Done. On to the next massive controversy! You’re gonna love it.
Thank you to the writer for a very well researched and documented article concerning the fate of the Talent Food Pantry. I have commented in the group, Talent, Oregon and will repeat my opinion and facts here.
Well, when Darby wants to ax something she doesn't like, she doesn't do a very good job of hiding it, (i.e. skatepark, Little League Fields, and now the ACCESS Talent Food Pantry). To date, as was promised, the public has not been allowed to input as they move forward developing the occupancy rules. Darby seems overly concerned about the fact that ACCESS food pantries are normally allowed residences in cities rent free as has been the case in the basement at the old Town Hall. Just to point out a couple of contradictions; Darby makes a point of saying the pantry was not evicted from the Town Hall, however in the plans for the remodel of the hall, the pantry space in the basement does not show them and to date they have not been invited to re-occupy the basement they have been established in for many years after the remodel.
Secondly, her concern that she thinks the pantry should start paying rent, contradicts her lack of concern for her favorite special interest groups, i.e. Rogue Action Center and Rogue Climate who have been solely occupying the city owned property at 102 Home Street, a small house with garage at the rental agreement rate of $1.00 per month I think since the fire. They also have an office rent-free in The Shoppes in Phoenix (according to Stuart Warren and Sarah Westover, then of RAC). Darby's other special interest groups (Sweet Beet, and Long Term Fire Recovery Group) occupy space in other city owned property at below-market rates. Not to mention her own private interest groups she occupies in city owned space.
Thirdly, isn't city finances something the City Manager and Finance Director should be evaluating? It's their responsibility, not the mayor's. And why is Darby running city business and soliciting public input on social media groups she controls who gets to join?
It's an old trick of Darby's to mislead the public into thinking their water fees will have to go up if she doesn't get her way. She manufactured this misinformation when the skatepark budget all the sudden gets transferred to a water meter upgrade project (which the funding was not in fact needed after all). She even slandered me personally as she conducted a poll of her own followers claiming I pushed for the skatepark repair (which had already been approved and funded) and this would cause city residents' water bills to skyrocket.
It is absolutely in violation of state and city laws for city officials to conduct city business on social media, yet she persists in spite of the recently updating of the city's own rules as well. So, can we all agree that Darby doesn't want a food pantry in Talent? There are no other pantry services other than ACCESS. Rogue Food Unites made it very clear to me when I asked if they would support the Talent Food Pantry that they were not a pantry.
So, I would suggest that the public not wait to be invited to give their input. I would suggest contacting the City Manager who council directed to write the guidelines for occupancy of the new building which will be owned by you, the taxpayers. Thank you.
The article contains several misleading claims and omits key context from recent public meetings.
No tenants have been selected for the Community Resource Center. The City is still developing criteria and exploring how to cover shared costs for the building. Discussions about rent and sustainability are happening in public meetings, which are recorded and accessible to the community.
Public engagement has not been blocked. Meetings have been open, and agendas have been posted. Suggestions for broader outreach, like surveys or forums, can be part of the process, but it is inaccurate to claim that the public has been shut out entirely.
The article presents speculation as fact and uses selective quotes to support a predetermined narrative. That approach does not promote transparency or accountability. It creates confusion and misrepresents what is actually being discussed.
A more accurate public conversation should include full context and focus on solutions rather than assumptions.
Well hello there anonymous person named Mayor Darby Ayers-Flood! The thread is missing the other message you wrote to me. Here it is:
Talent Council Watch Report
Anonymous replied to your comment on A Closer Look at the Mayor's Push to Replace ACCESS .
There are a number of misleading claims here, both in this comment and in the TCW article it's responding to, that deserve correction. First, the claim that the Mayor is trying to replace ACCESS is false. No tenants have been selected. No one has been excluded. What was discussed, openly in a public study session, was how to fairly cover building costs for all users of the space. That is not political scheming, it is a standard and necessary part of managing a shared public facility. Second, ACCESS’s long-standing policy of not paying rent is well understood. The discussion was not about removing them, it was about figuring out how to balance costs when one tenant cannot contribute. That is a valid conversation to have, especially if the goal is to support the pantry long-term without putting the entire financial burden on other groups. Third, the claim that the public has been shut out is simply not true. The tenant criteria have been discussed in multiple public meetings, all properly noticed and recorded. If someone wants broader outreach or additional tools like town halls or surveys, they should propose it. Pretending that no one is allowed to participate is misleading. The repeated accusation that City officials are violating state law by posting on social media is also inaccurate. Sharing updates or summaries is not the same as deliberating or making decisions. That distinction matters, and it is not being acknowledged here. Finally, the TCW article is not neutral reporting. It makes assumptions, skips important context, and reads as if the outcome is already decided and the author is just filling in the blanks. That is not how public trust is built. It is how it is eroded. There is plenty of room for debate about how to structure occupancy at the Community Resource Center. But let's have that conversation based on facts, not speculation and spin.
To the admins of this group, can you please instruct me on how to block an anonymous account? I refuse to take Darbys bait. Liars don't deserve the dignity of a response from me. I will add just one question to her though: Hey Darby: if it is not against State ORS laws and your own Council Rules for city government officials to discuss city business on social media, then why are you posting anonymously? One more, Why aren't these laws posted on the Talent City Website? Thanks.
It appears Clarkie has blocked my account, but their comments are still visible when I'm not logged in. To be clear I'm not the Mayor and I do not know Clarkie. Just an anonymous reader, similar to the author of this newsletter, whose anonymity does not seem to be an issue unless someone is presenting a different point of view.
Posting anonymously is not a tactic. It is a choice, and one this publication uses freely. If it is acceptable for the author, it should be acceptable for others participating in the conversation.
If blocking someone helps avoid disagreement, that is up to you. But disagreement is not lying, and calmly pointing out misleading claims should not be treated like a personal attack.
The concerns raised were about how the article framed events, skipped context, and pushed conclusions that are not supported by the full record. That is not accountability, it is narrative shaping.
Public conversations should focus on facts, not assumptions about who is speaking, especially when you can watch the full video of these meetings and arrive at your own conclusion rather than reading an "article" that has a clear agenda and is filled with opinion.
Also its hilarious to pull a comment that I clearly deleted and edited then re-post it then block me all in one swift move. Solid civil discourse...
This comment was sent to my email from TCW but I can't see it here for some reason, maybe it was deleted?
Talent Council Watch replied to your comment on A Closer Look at the Mayor's Push to Replace ACCESS .
This comment sounds like it was written by the unpaid staff of an authoritarian dictator in a communist country who wants people to think it's actually a democracy, lol. Sorry but people can talk about whatever they want, however they want. Also every single thing you said is either untrue, makes no sense, or doesn't apply anything we actually wrote (sometimes all 3 at once!)
My Response.
Interesting that a request for factual accuracy gets compared to propaganda from a dictatorship.
This is a public conversation. If criticism is fair game, so is correcting misinformation. Dismissing any disagreement as “authoritarian” while claiming to support accountability is ironic, to say the least.
Nothing in the original comment said people couldn’t talk about what they want. It pointed out that the article presents speculation as fact and omits relevant public information. That remains true, regardless of how loudly it is mocked.
A serious publication should be able to handle disagreement without resorting to name-calling. If your goal is transparency, then you should welcome scrutiny, not shut it down with jokes.
Hi Anon, author of the post here. I’m sorry this newsletter does not say the things you think it should say in the ways you think they should be said. That probably is not going to change. Also, I don't have any control over who blocks who in the comments but TCW does not block anyone who wants to share their opinion, even if we strongly disagree. I believe we all have a right to be heard on topics related to the town we live in, so you are welcome to say what you want, anonymously or otherwise. (But also you should expect jokes in return, because I like making jokes). This is not a post in a Talent Facebook group, I am never going to manipulate a comment section in my favor to shut down dissent. And I very much welcome scrutiny on my articles. I have always welcomed factual corrections and have said that multiple times. And yes I did delete my own reply comment to you. After I saw your next comment come in I realized you were not at a place where you would be able to engage with what I said in a coherent way, so I deleted it. I did not know you would then get it in an email! My bad on that.
The problem with your criticism so far is that you’re accusing me of a lot of stuff without actually pointing out where I did any of what you’re saying I did. I actually spend a huge amount of time fact-checking what I write here. And like I said, I am very open to fact corrections. But you’re not actually correcting anything, you’re just declaring that it’s all more of that oft-cited Misinformation that’s always undermining the Talent government’s good work. You’re allowed to do that of course, and I’m allowed to ignore it and/or laugh about it.
If you were instead to point out exactly where I got something wrong, and you could provide me with any backup that it was in fact wrong, I would correct it, but your complaints about my writing have no specificity for me to address. Throwing around word salad accusations around isn’t going to do much to correct the record if it’s indeed incorrect, know what I mean?
For example, you said: “The article presents speculation as fact and uses selective quotes to support a predetermined narrative” and “The concerns raised were about how the article framed events, skipped context, and pushed conclusions that are not supported by the full record” and then you said it “omits relevant public information.”
How am I supposed to address those issues if you don’t tell me what you’re talking about exactly? I’m actually quite sensitive to the claim that I’m presenting speculation as fact because I try very hard to avoid doing that, so please do tell me where I did that so I can review my framing.
Please feel free to make your case against my arguments. You will not be blocked for having a different opinion here. I just encourage you to do so by referring to what I have actually written and with more specific claims if you expect me to address them.
Thanks for the reply. Since you asked for specifics, here they are. This is not about tone or disagreement. It is about the difference between fair critique and misleading framing.
There are several issues with the article, starting with the way it presents speculation as fact and leaves out key context:
No one “tried to replace” ACCESS. The April 2 discussion was about how to fairly cover building costs if a tenant cannot pay rent. Multiple Councilors, including the Mayor, discussed ways to support ACCESS, including partnerships, co-tenancy, and creative solutions. That part of the conversation is entirely omitted.
Rent-sharing was always part of the plan. The original grant application submitted to Business Oregon included projected rental revenue. This was public, anticipated, and consistent with past conversations. Suggesting it was a surprise or last-minute pivot is not accurate.
The article omits important voices. Councilor Medina and others expressed support for ACCESS and raised ideas to keep them in the building. Their perspectives are missing, which shifts the tone from reporting to narrative-building.
The central argument relies on assuming intent. The article frames the Mayor as attempting to install a preferred nonprofit in ACCESS’s place, without presenting any evidence that such a group has been identified or approached. That is not a factual claim, it is conjecture.
This approach contradicts TCW’s own stated values. The About section says TCW will not make unwarranted accusations, will engage in good faith, and will distinguish fact from opinion. This article makes accusations without evidence, omits key facts, and presents opinion as certainty.
You also asked why the response used phrases like “selective quotes” or “framing assumptions.” These are not vague critiques. They are based on clear editorial choices in your piece that misrepresent a public process as a backroom decision.
And as someone who watches these meetings, either live or via the recordings, what consistently comes through is not malice or scheming. It is elected officials and staff having thoughtful, sometimes messy, but genuine discussions about how to solve real problems. That reality does not fit the tone or implications of this article.
Finally, following this week’s Council meeting, it seems the central premise of the article is now moot. What remains is an editorial built on assumptions that were never supported by the full record.
Thank you for providing your concerns and feedback more specifically. I do appreciate you taking the time to lay out all your objections. Even though I disagree with you I am glad to see dialogue happening. Overall it sounds to me like you are taking issue with opinionated criticism of Talent City Council more than anything else.
Also let me add that the criticism in the article is directed entirely toward the Mayor, not Council members. That isn’t always the case in the TCW Report, but it definitely is in this instance. I don’t think the Council as a whole or any members did anything wrong here, not in this meeting or the following one on this agenda item. I agree that they’re just trying to figure out the best way to make the situation work. My issue is with the Mayor trying to convince Council to make rent a minimum requirement for food distribution, and I am concerned by it enough to dig into the whole sequence of events to see what might be happening behind the scenes in relation to her stance in that Study Session.
"No one “tried to replace” ACCESS and “Rent sharing was always the plan” - I think you’re forgetting the first approximately 30 minutes of that study session in which the Mayor proposed adding the minimum requirement, the “4th bullet point” as it were, that the tenant be able to cover their share of the costs. She was not absolutely not arguing for a rent sharing model for most of the meeting - the idea of making it a high priority instead of a minimum requirement came only after input from others, most convincingly from the City Manager. Please read over the first set of quotes from the Mayor in my article again. Much of her speaking time was spent on how she does not support rent-sharing because it would be unfair to other tenants. She conceded by the end of the meeting to only prioritize rent instead of require it, and that she would be okay with rent sharing options only on the condition that no rent-paying org could be found to apply for the space. I genuinely cannot understand how anyone could argue that she did not try to replace ACCESS with an org that would pay rent when that is absolutely exactly what she tried to do, albeit unsuccessfully. What am I missing here?
“The original grant application submitted to Business Oregon included projected rental revenue. This was public, anticipated, and consistent with past conversations. Suggesting it was a surprise or last-minute pivot is not accurate.” - When was the rental revenue budget ever made public? In which public meeting was this rent-sharing plan discussed? Given what I brought up in my previous point, if distributing ACCESS’s rent to other tenants was always the plan like you say it was (I am unsure how you would know that unless you were part of a Council discussion that was not made public?) then how was the Mayor trying to turn rent into a minimum requirement (aka replace ACCESS) not both a pivot and a surprise? By your own logic, if rent sharing was the original plan as you say, then the mayor’s minimum requirement suggestion was in fact a change from that plan, correct? Which is exactly what I said in the post. I never said rent sharing was a big surprise, in fact most of us always assumed that’s how this would play out. I said that the Mayor recommending a minimum requirement over a rent share scenario was a surprise and I maintain that nothing I wrote in relation to that was inaccurate.
Can you see why this all raises suspicions about what went down with this? Don’t you think we have a right to ask questions when something is as murky as this is and there’s a 1.5 million dollar grant and property purchase at stake? The Mayor has no one to be accountable to except for us, the voters. There is no agency to complain to when she bullies people off of Facebook, no one who will censure her when she misleads us about what she’s doing or when she orchestrates outcomes in private meetings. The only recourse we have is to make other people aware of it, talk about it, and then vote accordingly. We are taking advantage of that recourse.
Contrary to how you make it sound, I didn’t make any radical claims or wild unsupported accusations at all, I provided documented evidence that pointed to something interesting happening behind the scenes and I proposed some possibilities for what it could all mean, and I did that in a critical voice while even reminding the reader that it was only an opinion. I do not believe I mischaracterized that opinion as fact or certainty. If anything I said could be even be construed as an accusation, then at the very least it was neither unsupported nor unwarranted. I didn’t name the organization because I found no documented proof that one has been selected. An unwarranted accusation would have been to name the organization and declare that the Mayor is scheming to get them in the building without any proof. But I didn’t do that. I presented evidence, the Mayor’s own words and City documents, that suggested something is off and then presented my view of what that thing could be. I even footnoted that as an opinion. Not sure what else I could have done other than just not writing the article. Do you really think it’s not okay for citizens to be critical of their government and that they should not speculate on what it’s up to? If so, I hope you’re not on or planning to run for Council! This is all basic free speech stuff, not even controversial (outside of Talent, anyway).
This is a watchdog publication, not a City of Talent press release, not the RV Times. TCW Report is a kind of citizen journalism called Investigate Commentary, which uses documented facts, public records, and statements made by officials to analyze and speculate about what is happening in our government. We’re not trying to serve as a neutral news source and we certainly don’t claim to represent all sides equally. Our purpose, my purpose in writing and the purpose of those who help me gather information and provide ideas and feedback, is to diligently scrutinize the actions of our Mayor and City Council, ask pertinent questions, and offer informed commentary, especially on matters that aren’t receiving much attention or when the Mayor has put so much spin on a narrative that it’s impossible for regular people to know what’s really going on.
TCW does have a point of view, yes. Our stance is that our Mayor and her Council, specifically the various Council groupings that have served under this Mayor since January of 2021, have tended to get away with a lot of stuff that just doesn’t seem right (‘right’ meaning ethical, transparent, honest, accountable) to many of us out here watching and reading. Trust me, there are a lot of people in Talent who are confused, frustrated, and looking for answers, it’s not just us. And yeah TCW does have an agenda, it’s to raise the level of integrity displayed by our Mayor and City Council. So to that goal I am going to continue to build narratives, speculate, assume, and have opinions, but I am going to do that all based on documented evidence, not just rumors. That is the whole point of this thing. I hope these clarifications can better inform your assessment of this newsletter from here on out.
Thanks for the dialogue!
Appreciate the response, but this still twists itself into the same knot as the article, all speculation, selective framing, and big assumptions dressed up as “just asking questions.” Honestly, you'd have better luck opening a pretzel factory than running a "watchdog" blog.
Let’s be real, the article’s main claim was that the Mayor tried to replace ACCESS with another org, and now Council has removed the rent requirement entirely. That alone makes the whole premise irrelevant. Yet instead of acknowledging that, this reply doubles down, defends the original framing, and then admits it's built on speculation and narrative-building. At the same time, it criticizes anyone who questions that spin as somehow being pro-secrecy or anti-transparency.
You can't have it both ways. If this is meant to be “investigative commentary,” it should still be grounded in fact. Instead, what’s presented here is a string of assumptions supported by selective quotes, ignoring everything that contradicts the story being told. Meanwhile, Council meetings, the actual public record, are fully open, recorded, and show people trying to work through a hard issue with no malice or hidden agenda.
Calling that process shady while defending anonymous speculation as accountability journalism is a stretch. And honestly, if the standard is going to be “anything could be happening behind the scenes,” then no amount of public transparency will ever be enough.
Looking forward to the next blog post about the next “massive controversy.”
Ahhhh ok, I see what’s going on here. That last line of your comment was the clincher. Your interest in this isn’t about getting to the truth, it’s to defend City Council while preemptively discrediting whatever might come from TCW in the future knowing that it will continue to be a critical source of information about Talent government. Which is fine, you can do that. I’m a big fan of free speech, although I do wish you had something more substantive to offer than platitudes. It sounds to me like you can’t refute the facts I’ve presented in support of my argument nor any of the questions I’ve raised, so you’re just trying to invalidate the style of writing itself. To be honest your accusations don’t make a ton of sense to me, not in relation to what I’ve actually written anyway, but I didn’t take debate in high school so maybe that’s on me.
I do know what ad hominem is though! I can definitely recognize that when I see it.
I maintain that my commentary is grounded in documented fact from the very sources you mention, and that there is no publicly available documentation that contradicts what I have presented here. If there is please feel free to share it with me. I am always ok with correcting a fact I got wrong. But you’re not correcting my facts, you’re correcting my opinion with your own opinion.
Perhaps you don’t understand what I am actually arguing? Which again isn’t even about the Council you’re unnecessarily defending, because I believe as a group they’ve handled this situation pretty well. Changing course after public pushback was wise and in line with the sentiment around town, and the suggestion to bring the tenant final decision back to Council for transparency and accountability was also a very smart call. My post and my comments are about what the Mayor’s rent requirement (then rent priority) proposal at the Study Session might be telling us about how her administration operates and what it might mean about the grant that was funded, given what we know from public records. It is absolutely not about the Council being “shady” about the food distribution topic, not at all.
When it comes down to it though, I am allowed my opinion and you’re allowed your opinion that I should not be expressing my opinion. Great. Done. On to the next massive controversy! You’re gonna love it.