+- Punaweb Forum (http://punaweb.org/forum)
+-- Forum: Punaweb Forums (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Punatalk (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Censorship proposed (/showthread.php?tid=5992)
Censorship proposed - rodrikthompson - 08-04-2009
After reading Paradise Park president Jeff Spaur’s July 31 comments on the Conch newsletter dated May 2009, I feel prompted to use Ronald Reagan’s famous comeback, “Now there you go again, Jeff.” Let me jump right to Jeff’s proposal to censor the Conch.
Jeff wrote: “5) An apology from the BOD [Board of Directors] is due the entire membership for some of the material distributed via the recent Conch newsletter. I will be seeking to implement substantial changes that will eliminate anything but accurate information and disallow any use by unauthorized individuals to give the appearance that they represent the HPPOA.”
So only “authorized individuals” with “accurate information” could write anything for the Conch. Jeff’s criticism is a reference to me, since I had three articles in the May, 2000 edition (which actually came out in July).
My first story (Conch page 1) said manager Suzanne Mayhew was fired. The board never told Suzanne or anyone else why she was fired. She believed it was because she opposed aspects of the road paving the program. A bond document said high-cost roads should be paved first. That turned out not to be legally binding, but Suzanne and others continued to believe it was a promise that should be kept.
The second story (Conch page 3) said that Nominating Committee violated the Bylaws by failing to seek board candidates. It also described how the Board voted not to correct the mistake. Those are facts.
The third story (Conch page 1) said that Board member Kaniu Kinimaka-Stocksdale was chairperson of the Nominating Committee which failed to do any work. Kaniu admitted that. After she failed to do her committee work, the Board nevertheless hired her as manager to do the work of the entire association.
Now let me turn to Jeff’s own record for “accurate information.”
1.) On March 26, Jeff sent an unkind email to Suzanne Mayhew, erroneously believing she had made statements which caused his real estate company to lose a sale. The email said. “You won’t even realize when the missiles have been launched until they hit.” Suzanne said she took the email as a threat and was frightened.
Jeff had learned about the supposed statements via hearsay. He later learned that Suzanne had nothing to do with the statements. One of the supposed statements said the area of the real estate parcel facing the ocean was a “hangout” where drugs deals were done. In an email, Jeff strongly objected to that statement.
Yet just nine days earlier, the Paradise Park association, with Jeff as president, received an email from a resident near the parcel saying, “We are also concerned with the high crime rate on the waterfront area.” The email referred to “evidence...of continued drug deals.”
2.) On April 13 certain board members told Suzanne she was fired. A few days later, board members discovered that the association computer system was not working properly. Jeff came close to accusing Suzanne of sabotage. On July 31 he was still writing, “...we had an accounting system that was disabled via potential sabotage.”
The fact is Suzanne did not know she was going to be fired until she was fired. So she had no advance reason to sabotage the computer. After she was fired, board members stood right next to her, so she had no chance to sabotage the computer.
3.) On April 24, Jeff sent an email ordering board members and association employees not to talk to Suzanne. I interpreted that as an order not to learn any facts. But I had already talked to Suzanne and I already knew the computer simply malfunctioned, as we all know computers do. How will the Conch get “accurate information” if people are ordered not to learn facts?
4.) On April 15, I responded on the HPP discussion board to a property owner concerned that the bond-for-paving program could jeopardize owners’ properties. I corrected that, saying, “There is just one form of collateral, your money.” Jeff responded that the statement was “100 percent false.” He said “accounts receivable” are the collateral. In fact, my statement is 99 percent true. Accounts receivable are money, and they do come almost entirely from property owners.
5.) Backing up, in 2006 the Board told properties owners all 120 miles of unpaved roads would be paved. But in January, 2009, when it was clear the bond money was far short of what was needed, Jeff buried the fact in the 15th line of his Conch “President’s Message.” He wrote, “...it would be wrong to create the false expectation of paving the entire subdivision.” Jeff’s major understatement failed to disclose that only about one quarter of the roads will now be paved. “Accurate information” should imply accurate and complete information.
Now back to Jeff’s proposal to censor the Conch. If this idea succeeds, Jeff may not be chosen as the censor who determines “accurate information.” But do property owners really want their information limited to what is provided by “authorized individuals”?
RE: Censorship proposed - csgray - 08-04-2009
I don't know Rod Thompson or what his relationship is with the current HPPOA board, but I do think that there was a lot of opinion mixed in with the facts in the "articles" he wrote for the Conch. I prefer to have editorializing in a clearly labeled opinion section and factual information in the articles, not opinions being stated as facts. It is not censorship to separate the opinions from facts and for the board to control what goes into the newsletter that they/we pay to send out,it is called editorial control, it would be a free for all to have anyone put in any articles they chose.
Carol
RE: Censorship proposed - allensylves - 08-04-2009
I voted no on the road paving because I was sure that what has happened would happen.
This 'censorship' should be clearly limited to marking opinions as opinions and not preventing the inclusion of dissenting voices. As an owner for nearly 20 years, this takes me back to the bad old days of lawsuits and a court appointed overseer. I hoped we were past that.
This paving boondoggle looks fishy overall to me.
Allen
Baton Rouge, LA & HPP
RE: Censorship proposed - Kelena - 08-04-2009
It's "who, what, where, why, when" and not "who, what, where, why, spin". Sadly, a generation has grown up with propaganda, rather than news. The journalist must be objective and editorialize only in editorials. There is a genuine dispute over the roads and what to do. I am actually on the side of those who think this was handled poorly by the HOA. However, normal journalistic standards require you to stick to the facts without spin.
RE: Censorship proposed - Sean - 08-04-2009
Rod,
To say this as gently as I can, I think your writing comes across to me as belonging more on the op ed page than as informational and I don't think that what you wrote belonged in the conch as informational. Maybe if they add a "letters to the editor" then I'd be more comfortable with it. But, hey, that's just my opinion.
Sean
RE: Censorship proposed - Kahunascott - 08-04-2009
WOW I'm sure glad I live on a County Road
If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it cost when it’s free
RE: Censorship proposed - JerryCarr - 08-04-2009
I suggested to Rod Thompson that he post here to give a perspective on his pieces in the Conch. I also think it should be noted that the Conch was about two months late, and much of what Rod had to say was more current news at the time it was scheduled to be published. (While I peronally believe there are some important facts in his pieces, I don't necessarily agree with all aspects of the presentation.) Whether or not we agree that this particular material is editorial or news, I think it is important for viewpoints other than strictly those approved by the HPP Board be allowed in the Conch. If that needs to be in an op-ed section, I would hope that it would be without censorship other than basic rules against profanity or name calling.
The Conch is the only HPP related news medium some HPPOA members experience. Not everyone is tuned to Punaweb where there is exchange of viewpoints, and the local mainstream media give only occasional and passing attention to HPP. Jeff Spaur commendably realizes this and posts here and on the under-utilized HPP Pro-Board forum. I appreciate Jeff's willingness to share information and the Board's point of view on line, and I agree that the Conch needs a facelift and better editing. I do not, however, think it wise or fair for the Board to assume a greater level of control without providing an outlet for opposing points of view.
Cheers,
Jerry
RE: Censorship proposed - riceflower - 08-05-2009
I welcomed the opposing viewpoints, and decry censorship in any form. This is a heads-up that we all need to become more involved in our community association. I did not vote for paving, I think water is more important. I support getting out of this bond deal. By the way, who brokered this bond deal for the Park?
RE: Censorship proposed - Kelena - 08-05-2009
The important thing is to disagree without making it personal, to the greatest extent possible. HOA's are composed of people, who generally are acting in good faith. They live there, too. When you attack people's integrity, you had better have a pretty good reason for doing so, or it reflects on your integrity adversely. If you can't just say "So and so was appointed" instead of "So and so was appointed and she consorts with the devil and wishes to use all your money to do bad things" then maybe you should get someone else who can be more objective about things to write the newspaper.
RE: Censorship proposed - Dave Smith - 08-05-2009
Although I am not a resident of HPP, but of the subdivision across the highway, I have to express concern about Rod's point No. 3 which said the HPP association's president ordered board members and association employees to not talk to the former manager.
Under what possible authority in a free country could the president make such a statement? Do the bylaws give him that authority? Foolish me, I thought only judges could issue gag orders.