Great work.

Why was the comment about Gordon deleted? [Portion removed]

Editor's note: The comment was deleted because it was off-topic; commentary on the article's subject is fine, but unsupported allegations of wrongdoing are not.]

The allegations against Mr. Gordon are not "unsubstantiated." If the Almanac had bothered to fact check instead of reflexively deleting comments that don't put San Mateo in a good light, they would have found an editorial from none other than the San Mateo Daily Journal that talks about Gordon initiating the Lifetime Achievement Award for Ayres in 2002, and how the pleas of victims to rescind the award were ignored for years:

Web Link

I myself spoke to Mr. Gordon at the Palo Alto Farmer's Market on a Saturday in October 2011 about rescinding the award. He was not very receptive. He told me to contact his office. Nothing happened.

San Mateo Supervisor Dave Pine was ultimately the one who got the ball rolling on rescinding the award.

Also, the person who runs the Ayres blog- whose blog posts have been deemed reliable by the California State Bar, wrote about his unsuccessful efforts to contact Gordon on this matter.

Web Link

The Almanac always seems to reflexively want to punish the victims who speak out, and side with the status quo politicians.

This article talks about Mr. Gordon's past as a politician. Any comments about efforts by citizens to hold him accountable when he was a politician are relevant. I can't even believe I am having this argument with a "news" organization.

[Editor's note: The comments that were removed went beyond fair comment about Rich Gordon's tenure as a supervisor -- beyond the facts you laid out in the first paragraph of this post. And we'd be grateful if you could provide examples of how the Almanac "always" wants "to punish the victims who speak out" -- a charge that's easy to make, but irresponsible to put forward without supporting evidence.]