HMB Review’s editorial is not even wrong

Wednesday’s editorial in the Half Moon Bay Review reminds me of physicist Wolfgang Pauli’s famous assessment of a scientific paper: "It’s not even wrong".

Our hapless editorialist opens by describing a local political fundraiser and saying that no laws were broken there. But the author does fret because the guest of honor was California Coastal Commissioner Sara Wan, saying "Section 84308 [of California’s Political Reform Act] notes that state officers, including Coastal Commissioners, shall not "direct" anyone to contribute more than $250 to anyone with a matter currently pending before the state."

Well, no, that’s not what the law says. The law actually says that the donor—and not the recipient—should not have a financial interest in any matter pending before the state.

The editorial then veers off into a long digression on the (very real) evils of ex parte communication. But it fails to note that no ex parte communication took place at the event. Or that Sara Wan is the only coastal commissioner who refuses all ex parte communications—a fact she mentioned in her presentation to the group.

The next to the last paragraph betrays what all the sound and fury is about: "The fault here is not his [Half Moon Bay City Council member Mike Ferreira’s]. He is simply raising money and awareness for his campaign."  That’s right, Ferreira’s not at fault.  But he’s mentioned three times by name. Supposed bad girl Sara Wan is mentioned once.

The editorial concludes with the sheerest of nonsense. "Coastal Commissioners should steer clear of local politics in every instance". How is this possible when half the commissioners are required by law to be local elected officials?

This is an interesting document. We’re wringing our hands about a legal appearance at a legal event at which unethical behavior was actively discouraged. Meanwhile an elected official who’s not at fault is forgiven for things he didn’t do. And we conclude with a recommendation that defies the laws of physics and the state of California.

This is not the first time the Review has served up a disingenuous or conveniently inaccurate editorial that condemns the city council with innuendo. Auric Goldfinger said it best: "There is a saying in Chicago, Mr. Bond: ‘Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action’."