The Review’s bias shows in the CUSD election

Should the Half Moon Bay Review be required to file as an official Political Action Committee? The actions of this coastside publication beg that question. Following is my experience with them.

During the recent campaign season, I was the campaign manager for school board candidate Jonathan Lundell. During the campaign, the Half Moon Bay Review systematically manipulated their letters page and ad placement to promote an outcome that favored the Wavecrest development.

Along with Lundell, John Moseley and Charles Gardner were running for three seats on the Cabrillo Unified School District board.

This is a chronological account of my experience with the Review:

In early September, I met with the Review’s advertising staff. I reserved space for the entire campaign on page 3A, next to the space already reserved by Charles Gardner, except for the last issue before the election when Gardner had reserved the entire available space on 3A.

Sept 22—John Moseley used the space reserved by the Gardner campaign. We used the space we reserved.

Sept 29—Moseley and Gardner shared the space reserved by the Gardner campaign. We used the space we reserved.

Oct 6—Gardner used the reserved space. Moseley ran no ad. The Review published a letter to the editor by Jolanda Schreurs, school board member, "Wavecrest woes can be overcome" in support of building the Middle School on the Wavecrest property.

Oct 13—Moseley used the Gardner reserved space. Gardener used space on 7A. We used our reserved space.

Oct 16—Jonathan submitted a letter to the editor regarding building a middle school on the Wavecrest property. On Oct 18 the Review rejected his letter and he was told that no editorial letters regarding the campaign would be accepted this year. This is a change in the Review’s prior policy of accepting letters to the editor until the last issue, and inconsistent with the publication of the 10/6 Schreurs letter.

Oct 20—the Review printed an attack ad in Gardner’s reserved space, adjacent to our ad.  In an endorsement titled "Vote for Gardner, Moseley for CUSD", the Review cited the middle school at Wavecrest as the deciding issue.

Oct 27—In the last issue of the Review before the election, Moseley and Gardner shared the reserved space.  The Review again prints a pro- Wavecrest letter, this time from Jim Larimer ["Make Wavecrest Happen Already", no link available], but no letters from anyone else about the campaign.

Nov 3—On the day after the election, the Review’s managing editor Clay Lambert evaluated the attack ad in and editorial called "An ad that added absolutely nothing".

Nov 10—The Review prints a story on page 3A "Ad writers say ends justify means of CUSD campaign" by Clay Lambert. It identified Jolanda Schreurs as coordinating the attack ad with the Gardner campaign and Jim Larimer, Chris Mickelsen and Kirk Riemer having paid for the attack ad.

Throughout this entire time Jonathan’s supporters were sending letters of support for Jonathan and his positions. None of them were printed.

Meanwhile, the Review printed two letters from Gardner’s supporters promoting the Wavecrest development, the very issue identified by the Review as the most critical to their endorsement.

Here we see the Review’s systematic manipulation of the school board election to the advantage of the two candidates promoting the Wavecrest development, and the silencing of any support for the Lundell campaign.

Because the attack ad was not independent of the Gardner campaign, the campaign is required to report this ad as a nonmonetary contribution under California campaign finance law. Because the ad was paid for on or before 10/14, it should have been included in the reporting period ending 10/16. It was not. I have filed a complaint with the FPPC.

The ad raised enough eyebrows that the San Mateo County Times did a page 2 article on the Review’s behavior [No longer online, but reported on Coastsider]. The Review didn’t follow up until after the election.

Unfortunately, election manipulation has become the standard practice of the Review. In the last candidate election in the fall of 2003 the Review scheduled candidate interviews for endorsement then called the candidates cancelling the interviews stating that the Review would not be doing endorsements then did "recommendations" for the voters with no interviews of the candidates. This was misleading to the candidates and unfair. Even candidates who received recommendations from the Review considered this to be an underhanded practice, unfair to the candidates.

It is unfortunate that the Review is beholden to the real estate developers, real estate agents and construction firms here on the coast. Perhaps if they had adequate revenue from another source they would be an ethical publication. They are not now and there is no reason to expect them to change in the near future.