Let's not forget that the FIRST accusations of an ethics violation, although extremely vague, were made by Nancy Reyering herself against Council member Peter Mason. Repeatedly.

Ms. Reyering has never bothered to substantiate those vague claims although she has repeated them in public several times, leaving them lying there where they continue potentially to damage Mr Mason's livelihood and primary business, that of being an architect.

The charges against Ms Reyering were carefully articulated and largely substantiated by a legal professional. That attorney's report was first published in this newspaper in the same article that described Ms Reyering's press release; the first public airing of this dispute. It seems fair to assume it was she who supplied the report to the press. So in almost every respect Ms Reyering has brought this entire embarrassing mess upon herself.

On the other hand, the charges Ms Reyering made against Mr. Mason have received no scrutiny whatsoever, especially from this newspaper. A major reason this looks "turned on its head" is because the Almanac repeatedly has failed to examine the details and validity of the claims made against Mr Mason. That's typical of the paper's bias in reporting on Woodside. Yet it has been tireless in repeating the publication of the charges against Ms Reyering.

So if we are to see this through as the Almanac suggests, the FIRST thing that should be done is examine the validity of Ms Reyerings claims against Mr Mason. The Almanac has somfar completely failed in that duty of fairness to both sides.

Thanks to ASRB victim for calling out the issues so well.
It is time to move on and the Mayor is trying to do just that.