Editor,
It insults the intelligence of voters. Everyone knows a school superintendent endorsement in a school board election would backfire and hurt more than help a candidate! That may be why Peggy Wolff’s campaign claimed an ad by Howard Hills agreeing with policies of the new superintendent somehow was intended to imply an endorsement of Hills by the superintendent.
The inescapable logic here is that voters are not smart enough to understand a candidate’s agreement with the superintendent’s public policy statements does not mean the superintendent endorses the candidate.
After discussing the issue with Dr. Viloria, candidate Hills continued to support the superintendent’s decision to issue a statement confirming his duty to remain neutral.
Hills noted, however, the superintendent had little choice after Indy reporter Marilynn Young informed him of the phantom endorsement conspiracy theory would be pursued as an Indy news story.
Other than claims of an opposition campaign, the Indy had zero objective evidence those claims were true. Indeed, Hills informed reporter Marilynn Young the Indy’s own advertising department produced the ad layout and acquired Viloria’s photo from the school district website.
Howard urged reporter Marilynn Young to interview Indy staff about whether there was any discussion or evidence of intent to imply an endorsement. The Indy declined to look for evidence and truth in its own house.
Even though Viloria carefully explained rumors of endorsement were unfounded, the Indy misinformed readers the superintendent “disavowed” the content of Hills’ ad. To the contrary, the superintendent did not dispute being the source of statements accurately attributed to him, or otherwise address ad content.
The ad was developed after Hills told Indy ad staff he was tired of pretty pictures and slogans, and wanted an idea driven ad. Howard’s goal was to give people hope we can build community around enhanced school board governance as we have for sports, academics, PTA and Schoolpower.
Indeed, since Wolff recently has been borrowing Howard’s call for “positive change,” she should have welcomed his ad instead of attacking it.
David Flores, Laguna Beach
The author is a supporter of Howard Hills, a candidate for school board.
Publisher’s response: Like most news organizations, the Laguna Beach Independent separates its editorial and advertising operations. Some paying advertisers, among them Mr. Hills, take advantage of design services that the paper provides at no extra charge without censoring, endorsing or altering the desired content unless it is clearly false or defamatory. The editorial department responds to news events and trends, including the comments and complaints about Mr. Hills’s advertisement that were made to the Indy and to the superintendent of schools. (A section of this letter has been omitted because fairness requires a response by its target.)
More prevaricating, opaque gobbledygook from Howard Hills. Anyone thinking of voting for this fraud should google “Jack Abramoff-Howard Hills.” He’s so used to underhanded dealing and doublespeak he can’t write, talk, or think in a way that communicates anything resembling a clear idea. What’s insulting is to call voters stupid for thinking this looked like an endorsement from the superintendent. If not that, what the hell is it supposed to be? Give us a break.
So your new policy is to censor letters that factually criticize anyone because the party criticized is not interviewed by the letter writer and given a chance to respond? Isn’t it up to the person criticized to decide if they wish to reply? How does a discussion take place if you censor any assertion that is not accompanied by a rebuttal? This is preposterous. This has NEVER been Indy policy. Why is it that I sense a last edition before the election puff piece to rehabilitate a candidate whose record is not being scrutinized as closely as mine was in your April 29 article on me? Also, how is it you did not censor the statements I was not allowed to respond to in the ad flap article last week? I was interviewed only about the Superintendent’s statement, not the other statements you published. There is no way to reconcile the censorship policy you announce above and your failure despite my explicit request to allow me to respond to the other statements made in the article of last week. Finally, the design and layout services the Indy provides are not free, they are paid for by advertisers, to this is just misleading. You admit your staff has a duty to evaluate content, and the very features of the ad that drew criticism were ones that your staff created. If I did anything wrong, which was not the case, so did your staff. The fact is that NO ONE thought a endorsement was implied, it was a fabricated narrative. Division between news staff and advertising staff is irrelevant here, what matters is that your staff knows damn well there was not intent to imply an endorsement. But you went ahead with a story your staff knows to be false based on subjective assertions by an opposing campaign and no evidence to support those assertions. To the contrary, your own staff knows better. It is utterly shameful. The only good news is that only a relatively small circle of political junkies is paying any attention to this amateurish nonsense, and I am not going to let it distract me from addressing the issues voters care about.
Dear Mr. Flores and Mr. Hills, I am an intelligent voter who, when I read the ad, thought the Superintendent endorsed Hills. Mr. Hills had my vote until I saw the way he reacted to the ad by blaming others-Peggy Wolff, the paper’s advertising designer and, now, unintelligent voters. Is this how you are going to approach the education of my children? By blaming others and not taking responsibility for any misunderstandings? We want transparency on our school board, not more finger pointing.
Please see documentary film with Howard Hills as one of the stars, about nuclear testing in the Marshall Islands…Hills worked for the U.S> government in the Marshall Islands for ten years, and he claimed to know nothing about well documented human radiation experiments conducted by the U.S. government there. for almost thirty years. The film can be found at website:
nuclearsavage.com