posted by Mike Madison at 3:46 PM /
Take a look at these two posts at the website for Mt. Lebanon School Board candidates Jo Posti and Rob Gardner:
Jo Posti (post title: "Going Positive") writes (I'm excerpting):
Rob Gardner (post title: "Going Negative") writes (I'm excerpting again):
Anyone want to clue in the rest of us regarding what has happened -- and what may be about to happen? Statements like this don't come out of nowhere.
Remember, signed comments only, please, per the usual blog policy.
The primary arrives on May 19.
Jo Posti (post title: "Going Positive") writes (I'm excerpting):
Negative campaigning is not just harmful to candidates. It’s harmful to our community. It damages trust in the electoral process which discourages participation in one of our most important responsibilities as citizens. We encourage all candidates for this and other offices to join us in leading Mt. Lebanon politics in a new direction. We ask that they not only take responsibility for their own campaigns’ communication but that they alert candidates to any potential negative communication they learn of and then take responsibility for any resulting literature produced that mentions other candidates. Together, we can elect leaders in our community based on candidates’ qualifications and integrity.
Rob Gardner (post title: "Going Negative") writes (I'm excerpting again):
I recently spoke to another candidate who assured me they weren't going to spend money on negative campaigning, but who then added that they couldn't be sure someone else wouldn't go negative on their behalf.
Really? Well, who, exactly, is in charge of your campaign? Jo and I have been approached by backers who urge us to be ready to go negative. We tell them "no." We tell them Mt Lebanon deserves to have their candidates address the issues and to judge us on the merits of our positions, qualifications, and experiences. No one else's agenda impacts or over rides our own.
If you are a candidate who cannot control the tenor of your own campaign, how can the residents of Mt Lebanon trust you to control the assets of the District?
I emplore all the candidates to reject the hijacking of their good intentions. Pledge along with Jo and I that we will not engage in, condone, or allow any form of negative campaigning via any media that benefits us in any way. [bold font in original.]
Anyone want to clue in the rest of us regarding what has happened -- and what may be about to happen? Statements like this don't come out of nowhere.
Remember, signed comments only, please, per the usual blog policy.
The primary arrives on May 19.
Labels: mt. lebanon school board
15 Comments:
Who’s ZOOMIN who?I have read a DRAFT letter from Mr. Gardner intended to be signed by his supporters that reads in part: These three candidates bring a level of experience and commitment to the School Board that is essential as we reshape the district’s future. Although you may cast your vote for up to four candidates, we suggest that you support only these 3, thereby increasing their odds for success. They share our view that Mt Lebanon’s dedication to excellence must encompass the total development of our children and the total inclusion of our community and its spaces.Are none of the other 4 candidates worthy of my 4th vote? I'd say 3 of the 4 -- are a lock.
Like I said: Who’s ZOOMIN who?
From a communication related to the letter referenced above:Guys,
I thought this letter was right on. What did you think? Please make sure you give Rob Gardner any comments you may have so we can get this letter in final format and please copy me on your comments.
For those of you not at our meeting with the candidates, the idea was to have a letter drafted such as the one attached, and then have as many influential people in the community be visible signors on the letter. These people would send emails to their personal email distribution lists by putting the email addresses in the “bcc” area so that the email addresses would not be visible to the recipients of the email. Our candidates need at least 2,000 votes to have a chance at winning. As you can see by the draft letter, our community is at a critical juncture and if we do not do everything in our power to change the make-up of the school board and get these three candidates elected, then nothing will get done. At our last meeting, we learned that because of the current political stronghold in our community by certain commissioners with deep pockets, the current board members including two of the current board members up for re-election, will not vote for any change that will result in the increase of taxes. Although I do not like paying any more taxes than I have to, I do not believe it is realistic to believe that you can keep Mt. Lebanon competitive, let alone in the front as it has been in the past, without responsibly increasing taxes....
An email was copied to these folks:
"Cc: Gardner, Robert; joposti@yahoo.com; MARY BIRKS"
It said in part:
“We need to coordinate at least three mass email blitzes (no pun intended) from now until the primary in May, maybe more. We need to find influential people in the community that have extensive personal email lists.”
Speak up if you will lend your name to this extensive emailing coming soon.
Bill, thanks for sharing this. I appreciate that plunking happens, but the judgment of a candidate who would publicly endorse the practice in an open letter to voters is questionable at best.
And in my humble opinion, any person in the community who would sign such a letter as a "person of influence" isn't as influential as
he, she or anyone else might think. Endorsing and campaigning for a candidate is one thing. Publicly encouraging folks not to exercise their right to vote in an effort to skew the numbers is entirely different. Like I said, I know it happens. However, encouraging it in this fashion demonstrates a lack of judgment.
As for the practice of plunking, it really makes no sense if you think about it. Four candidates will move on, regardless of whether you vote for 1, 2, 3, 4 or none. So, as an interested voter, wouldn't you prefer to have a say as to ALL of them? In a race in which we are asked to select more than one person, a plunker's vote still only counts as one vote for his candidate of choice. However, the plunker's non-vote essentially silences his own voice as to the final, collective outcome.
Lastly, I can certainly appreciate that what was provided in Bill's second comment was intended for "a few eyes only" . . . but as my college Journalism professor used to say, "If you write it, always assume someone is going to read it."
It all comes down to using good judgment.
Dave Franklin is right: Good judgment is essential.
I am not at all convinced that the poor judgment exhibited in these materials is any candidate's poor judgment.
It is at least equally likely, and maybe more likely, that these things represent poor judgment on the part of candidates' supporters.
Regarding both the communication referred to in Bill's second comment, and the email message referred to in John's comment, I don't doubt their authenticity.
I do wonder who wrote them. I do wish that the true author/sender were identified, and that their full contents were disclosed. (Don't have space in a comment? Then put the document up on Scribd and post a link.)
Are there similar materials floating around in cyberspace -- or dissimilar ones -- that have to do with other School Board candidates?
Mike, you seem to suggest that Ms. Posti and Mr. Gardner were unaware of or did not endorse this activity. If that's the case, and since both have proven themselves to be very blog savvy, do you think we can expect them to step forward on this or their own blog to disassociate themselves from these unidentified supporters, the proposed letter and the unendorsed call for plunking on their behalf?
If the ballot says "Vote for up to four" then the first choice a voter has is how many people to vote for. So, insisting they vote for four candidates is also a form of silencing.
Voting for less than four is a reasonable response to the phenomenon of cross-filing in primaries. When that fourth person is likely to be on both tickets in November anyway, it doesn't really remove any choices a potential plunker would ultimately have.
Dave, I only suggest that the burden of demonstrating that they *were/are* aware of these materials, or *did* endorse them, hasn't been met.
I don't know what either of them said or did, one way or the other.
I don't speak for either of them, so I have no idea what to expect.
I have every reason to believe that each of them, like the other School Board candidates, reads this blog from time to time.
The author's know Bill's document and the one I quoted from are the same email. They also know who they are, Mike.
Mike, mine was a rhetorical question. I was NOT suggesting that you speak for these candidates. However, I WAS suggesting that if they want to disassociate themselves with a group or a movement that *appears* to be acting on their behalf, there is certainly ample opportunity to do so.
Dave B., like I said earlier, I know that plunking occurs. My point in this instance was to question the judgment of a candidate who would publicly promote or endorse the practice - if that's in fact what was happening here.
That's beside the point, John. "They" know who "they" are, but we (i.e., me and readers of this blog) have no idea.
Who the supporters are matters little, they are not the candidate. Mr. Gardner’s staking out the high ground was incongruent with his concerted plunking effort. Plunking is no big deal, but for Mr. Gardner’s own words: we will not engage in, condone, or allow any form of negative campaigning via any media that benefits us in any way. Let's give Mt Lebanon the honest, open exchange of opinions and ideas that this community deserves.Plunking orchestrated by a candidate says much more than “VOTE FOR ME!” -- it says -- “DO NOT VOTE FOR MY OPPONENT!”NOT is positively negative.
If "...we suggest that your support only these 3", Why aren't Gardner, Posti and Birks on the same yard sign?
I'm a reader of this blog and I have been forwarded, unsolicited, e-mails that seemingly identify who "they" apparently are. I cannot attest to the authenticity of the e-mails; however, I am willing to identify the e-mails, their alleged senders and recipients and selected excerpts. If the individuals so named are incorrect, I encourage those wrongly named to come forward and so indicate for the record.
I assume these e-mails have likely received rather wide distribution around the community. If they are false or fraudulent, they should be exposed as such. Here they are:
1)From: Gardner, Robert
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009
To: Daniel K. Goff; Mary Birks;
Jo Posti; David Reese; Hagy
Cc: Bill Difenderfer
Subject: RE: Meeting Reminder
This e-mail refers to a draft
campaign letter by Gardner,
attached, they were
collaborating on intended for
broad distribution in Lebo
that asks recipiants to vote
for Posti, Gardner and Birks on
May 19th.
2)From: Daniel K. Goff
Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009
To: David Reese;Scot Caplan;
Bill Difenderfer; Hagy;
Chip Dalesandro; Stephen
Patrick
Cc: Robert Gardner; Jo Posti;
Mary Birks
Subject: CONFIDENTIAL-do not
use a forward email
This message complimented the
Gardner draft (referred to
above), referred to "our
meeting with the candidates",
the seeking of "influential
people in the community" to be
"visible signors" on the letter
who would send the letter to
their personal email lists using
the "bcc"area so that the mail
addresses would not be visible
to the recipients...for the
stated reason "..if we do not
do everything in our power to
change the make-up of the school
board and get these three
candidates elected, then nothing
will get done."
The message goes on: "With this
list, I believe we have at least
football, basketball, and
wrestling covered. We need to
cover basketball, baseball, soft-
ball,wrestling, soccer, lacrosse,
field hockey, swimming, and
theatre arts"
It continues with the need for
fundraising with the caution
" We also learned that there are
rules related to fund raising so
please do not do anything on your
own without consulting the
candidates."
This message was apparently sent
from a corporate office.
If nothing else, and these messages are authentic, perhaps we will eventually learn who
"influential people in the community" are.
There have been no posted denials as to the authenticity of the emails referred to in my May 3rd. comments. Therefire, both the individuals named and the email content excerpted must be authentic.
Since May 3rd. I have been forwarded a large number of additional emails that include beyond the same, inclusion of additional individuals and similar but more expansive subject matter. School district employees also appear.
A number of the youth sports organizations involved in all this have associated nonprofit, charitable 50i(c)(3) organizations. If the identified individuals are representing their youth sports organizations, they are also representing their 501(c)(3)'s. Many of the emails include school board candidate recipients and stated support for those three candidates as well as opposition to the four remaining candidates. This represents a very slippery slope and could involve what is classified as Political Campaign Intervention....and here's what the IRS says about that kind of activity: "Under the Internal Revenue Code, all 501(c)(3)organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes."
Post a Comment
<< Home