Principal Eagle Reporter Reveals Personal Bias

 

The following article was published a few days ago and has been edited to correct misspellings of Mr. Axelson's name and to remove a couple of statements that did not add to the substance of the piece. Many Common Sense readers called or emailed when this article was removed and asked that it be left in place so they could share it with friends.

 

==========================================================================
PRINCIPAL EAGLE REPORTER REVEALS PERSONAL BIAS by Directus Veritas
==========================================================================
You’ve seen it in his “news” articles, now it’s crystal clear...
=================================================================== 
Point for Point with David Axelson’s rambling “grumble-a-thon”
===================================================================
Why would anyone rip up an all-volunteer, non-partisan residents’ group for hosting a community forum at their own expense?
===================================================================
Coronado CAN! Political Forum Best In History of Coronado!
===================================================================
AXELSON SAID:
“Several of the elements for a successful political forum were present Thursday night, October 18 for the Coronado Community Association of Neighbors (CAN). The event which was held in the beautiful Coronado High School Theater featured a strong turnout of approximately 250 residents and all seven of the city’s candidates for public office.”
----------
FACTS:
----------
* 350 residents attended the forum, not 250, which is roughly ten times the average attendance of any other public-invited forum held this year.
===================================================================

AXELSON SAID:
“Mayoral candidate incumbent Casey Tanaka and his challenger, sitting Councilwoman Barbara Denny were both on hand. Accompanying them on the dais were the five candidates for a four-year term on the city council. They included incumbent Councilman Mike Woiwode and challengers Jean Roesch, Susan Keith, Kari McPherson and Richard Bailey. The five council candidates are vying for two open slots.

Coronado CAN official Kevin Riley kicked off the proceedings, which included an explanation of the forum’s format. A series of questions authored by Riley were to be ‘answered’ by CHS National Honor Society students by placing one of five color-coded sheets of construction of paper in front of the speakers’ podiums. The candidates would confer with the students and tell them which colored sheet represented their response to the question.”
----------
FACTS:
----------
* The speaker's name was misspelled, it's Reilly. And he’s just a Coronado CAN! member, not an “official.”

* A committee of over a dozen people authored the “questions,” compiling submittals from the Coronado community on topics they would like addressed.

* They actually were not “questions.” They were “Likert Items” —statements of opinion to which the candidates responded using a “Likert Scale.”  In a Likert survey, respondents can choose between strongly agree, agree, no opinion, disagree, or strongly disagree. This system enabled candidates to quickly and unequivocally reveal to the audience their stance on a wide range of Coronado topics.

* Just to be clear . . . the students didn’t ‘answer’ the “questions”—the candidates did and the students put up the appropriate color.

* It wasn’t “construction of paper” (sic)—it was a high-quality foam selected after an extensive search because its bright colors made differentiation between viewpoints easy from anywhere in the theater.

* The candidates did not “confer” with the students. Each simply told his/her Student Assistant what his Likert response was, and the student put the appropriate color up for the audience to see. Simple.
===================================================================

AXELSON SAID:
“The paper colors were dark green for strongly agrees, medium green for agrees, yellow for no opinion, red for disagrees and dark red for strongly disagrees. Depending on the lighting and your vantage point in the audience, the red and dark red cards appeared similar in color. About the time you had some appreciation for the range of the seven answers that had been flashed before you, new questions were being asked. Sometimes the cards went up late and sometimes they didn’t go up at all.”
----------
FACTS:
----------
* The actual colors were dark green, light green, yellow, pink and red.

* The color sheets were large and easily differentiated, even from the very back of the theater. Theater and stage lighting was professionally controlled throughout.

* Three or four “Likert Statements” in a topic area were covered before a general question in that area was asked and yes, you had to pay attention if you wanted to keep up. Sorry if you had trouble.

* On one or two occasions a National Honor Society student dropped a card when a candidate changed his mind on a response. On one or two occasions candidates declined to answer, so no card was displayed. Overall the students did a great job and deserve tremendous praise.
===================================================================

AXELSON SAID:
“So immediately it was clear that the Coronado CAN forum chose form over substance as the for the event format, with more quick questions preferred to longer and in theory more thoughtful responses. The format did allow for a sprinkling of one-minute answers from the candidates, which were far too few in number.”
----------
FACTS:
----------
* The innovative use of Likert Items and corresponding colors enabled voters to see exactly where the candidates stood on over 30 statements specifically relating to Coronado topics, as well as see exactly where the differences of opinion between the candidates lay. No other forum has ever done that so efficiently and so clearly. It was brilliant.

* Well over an hour of candidate speaking time was spent on “thoughtful responses.” The video at www.coronadocan.org is proof. The candidates spoke on arguably every topic area of general interest to residents.
===================================================================

AXELSON SAID:
“Adding to the confusion was a passing of a small American flag among the participants meant to delineate who was the first person to answer the last question. Another downfall was the fact that on occasion the question flashed on the huge screen behind the candidates didn’t match the query asked by NBC 7/39
political reporter and event moderator Gene Cubbison.”
----------
FACTS:
----------

* One candidate didn’t listen to the pre-event instructions and got confused with the flag. It was quickly corrected and the flag worked perfectly thereafter to guide the very professional Mr. Cubbison to the first responder for each discussion question.

* Mr. Cubbison was at liberty to choose the Likert statements and questions posed, and CoSA student / projectionist Cameron Taylor did an outstanding job of keeping up with him. He deserves tremendous praise, not unwarranted derision.
===================================================================

AXELSON SAID:
“But the biggest missed opportunity was the slanted nature of the questions asked of the candidates, which immediately reflected a pro-Barbara Denny slant. After the candidates were given a minute each to discuss their highest priority to improve residential quality in Coronado, the color-coded game cards went into action to answer a tunnel-related series of traffic questions.”
----------
FACTS:
----------
* Pro-Barbara Denny? Casey Tanaka personally designated his supporter, [name withheld], to review the statements before the Forum, and [name withheld] spent several hours with Coronado CAN! tuning every single detail of every single Likert Statement to be absolutely sure no bias was shown against the Mayor.

* No “game cards” were used.

* 2 out of 11 statements in the Traffic topic area addressed Prop H, whereby voters effectively killed the tunnel. 9 out of 11 statements had nothing to do with the tunnel. Not one single question about the tunnel was ever asked.
===================================================================

AXELSON SAID:
“For better or worse, the Proposition H/Tunnel issue was decided during the California Primary Election held June 8, 2010. The advisory ballot measure requested voter approval for $2 million to complete a study initiated in 1998 to address traffic concerns on the State Route 75/282 traffic corridor. The fact that Proposition H was a referendum on completing the traffic study, not a vote regarding the construction of the tunnel, was apparently beside the point Thursday night. But the tunnel is identified in the public mind as a Denny issue, apparently making it important enough to event organizers to be included at the outset of the session.”
----------
FACTS:
----------
* Completing the traffic study was exactly the point. The statement was “I supported completing the Prop H study, keeping the possibility of a tunnel alive.”

* Traffic was the first topic area covered because most residents agree that it has been the #1 issue relating to residential quality in Coronado for the last 40 years. Prop H was covered first as the only reference to that 40-year history, before moving on to present and future traffic solutions. It had nothing to do with Denny.
===================================================================

AXELSON SAID:
“The largest audience reaction came to the next series of questions that related to beach event use and the new city policies that govern them. There was some legitimate disagreement among the candidates on the issue, which of course wasn’t able to be discussed at length due to the event format. From the crowd reaction and the reaction of most of the panelists, the beach use issue will likely come up again at the city council level, regardless of who wins the election.”

----------
FACTS:
----------
* The beach issue “wasn’t able to be discussed?” After the beach statements were covered, the related question asked was “Please describe the most important thing the Council needs to do in the next year to improve the ‘beach experience’ for Coronado residents.” They talked about it at length. See the video at www.coronadocan.org for proof.
===================================================================

AXELSON SAID:
“Coronado’s finances were a recurring theme, with Tanaka noting that the city has a 100 percent annual budget operating surplus set aside for a, 'Rainy day.’ Denny suggested that the city, 'Cut expenses and live within our means,' and continued on to say that she would 'Seek community consensus for a 10-year financial plan. With stresses on our budget, sound financial planning is a key.'
 

Thus in one sound bite, Denny ignored the fact that the city had a $3 million budget surplus in Fiscal year 2011-12 alone and $39 million overall. Plus the city manager form of government that Coronado retains is far more adept at budget preparation than the public-at-large is likely to be. A 10-year municipal budget plan literally wouldn’t be worth the paper it is printed on.”
----------
FACTS:
----------
* According to a report given to the Council on Oct 2nd by Leslie Suelter, revenues exceeded expenditures in 2011-2012 by $1.478 million, not $3 million.

* With a one-minute time limit, each candidate chose what they thought was most important to say about city finances. Given the complexity of the topic, it is fair to say that all candidates “ignored” certain points related to the city’s finances, not just Denny.

* And to suggest that Denny said that the public-at-large should prepare the detailed budget—instead of the “city manager form of government”—is ridiculous. Listen to the video at www.coronadocan.org, which recorded exactly what every candidate said, for proof.

* What no candidate chose to address was what the cumulative effect of potential liabilities to the city’s budget might be in the out-years (for example: CDA underpayments, CDA loan lack of reimbursement, relatively high city employee staffing levels and salaries, rising and often exorbitant pension payments, underfunded pension fund, the Cays berm liability, and the underfunded building and equipment replacement fund.)
===================================================================

AXELSON SAID:
“As the presentation evolved, the questions took on the tenor of the famous unanswerable query, ‘Are you still beating your wife?’ One bon mot was 'Has the city council’s previous action/inaction contributed to an overbuilding crisis that exists today.' The given in the statement is that the city is in crisis. The action item framed by the question would be, ‘Now, who do we blame it on?’”
----------
FACTS:
----------
* They weren’t “questions!” They were “Likert Items.”

* In a Likert Survey, respondents are free to choose the extent to which their personal opinion agrees, or not, with each Likert Item (statement). If the statement includes two elements, disagreement with either element constitutes grounds for disagreeing with the statement as a whole. Most people understand how that works.

* The next time you see a Likert Survey, now that you know what it is, keep in mind that disagreeing with a statement does not imply agreement with the converse of the statement.

* In the final analysis, when you know precisely how seven candidates feel about 56 Likert statements on matters of interest to residents, you have a pretty good idea of how they think, as well as what questions you might want to ask them toward further clarification.
===================================================================

AXELSON SAID:
“But the low note was the line of questioning surrounding the city’s redevelopment agency, suggesting that its creation was in some way amoral because the city was declared blighted. When redevelopment was ended by the state in early 2012, there were more than 400 redevelopment agencies established throughout the state, a fact that of course wasn’t referred to in the question.
'Generally speaking, redevelopment which began in 1985 returned Coronado’s own property tax dollars to the city, just in larger percentages than if the redevelopment agency hadn’t been established. As a 20-year resident of the city, it is apparent to me that both the city’s buildings and the Coronado Unified School District are in far better shape now that they would have been without redevelopment.' ”
----------
FACTS:
----------
* It could be argued that nothing is more important in United States politics these days than ethics, at every level of government.

* Two Likert statements relating to the Community Development Agency concept were included in the Ethics section of the Forum because abuse of the intent of the legislation has been rampant statewide, directly leading to its recent dissolution by Governor Brown. CDA legislation was introduced to address 'slums and dilapidated housing' in California.

* Coronado has frequently been cited as one of the most egregious abusers of the CDA concept. Coronado’s “blighted” claim included a “redevelopment area” that included all privately owned property in the city.

* While Coronado’s use of the CDA concept has been popular, legal and commonly regarded as beneficial, not everyone agrees that what Coronado did was ethical.

* Based on their answers, all of the candidates apparently struggled with the ethics of two CDA-related statements. On Statement #42, only 3 out of 7 agreed that what Coronado did was ethically justified. The rest went with "no opinion" or disagreed.
===================================================================

AXELSON SAID:
“Later in the program questions suggested overturning the California Coastal Commission’s approval for expansion of the Hotel del Coronado and called for a scaling back of tourist promotion for the city.”
----------
FACTS:
----------
* No “question” “suggested” anything. Likert Items were presented to give the candidates an opportunity to agree or disagree.

* Coastal Commission decisions are regularly appealed and overturned.

* Many would argue that promoting increased tourism in the summer months is not the best use of taxpayer funds when things like the Building & Equipment Replacement Fund and Pension Fund are substantially underfunded.
===================================================================

AXELSON SAID:
“The final few questions went increasingly far afield and had the sense that they were included to fill time. Providing those in attendance with a synopsis of Denny’s voting record in city council matters over the past two years would have been easier, more direct and saved a lot of time.”
----------
FACTS:
----------
* Every statement was directly related to a Coronado topic.

* Gene Cubbison set a blistering fast pace and, even so, in two hours was only able to get through about 30 of the 56 Statements prepared. There was no need to "fill time."

* The purpose of the Forum was to get information from all seven candidates. Covering the voting record of any individual candidate would not have been efficient use of time.
===================================================================

AXELSON SAID:
“There are legitimate differences among the candidates and none more so than between Tanaka and Denny. What would have been preferable was a forum format that actually let the candidates speak, without the provided slanted questions and the gimmicky over-sized flash cards. In theory Coronado CAN has two years before the next election to work on their presentation.”
----------
FACTS:
----------
* As a result of this Forum and the Likert Survey approach, the differences between the candidates have never been more systematically presented or made easier to understand. See the tabulated data at www.coronadocan.org.

* The candidates spoke for well over an hour. See the video at www.coronadocan.org for proof. No one will remember what they said, but the Likert Survey results will serve as a quick reference for years to come for those that are interested.

* The statements were not “slanted.” In fact, they were painstakingly reviewed in several sessions by multiple individuals to ensure that there was no bias, including by Casey Tanaka's specifically appointed "designated hitter."

* The statements were written to highlight the differences of opinion between the candidates and they were enormously successful in that regard: only 4 of 56 received unanimous agreement or disagreement.

* The use of color to highlight Likert positions of candidates, and the differences between candidates, was enormously successful, and avoided hours of redundant and typically forgettable verbiage common at other forums.
===================================================================
===================================================================
FOR A QUALITY ARTICLE ON THE CORONADO CAN! COMMUNITY-WIDE CANDIDATE FORUM, READ
E-CORONADO OR CORONADO COMMON SENSE.
===================================================================
===================================================================

 

Submitted by Directus Veritas

Comments

[Anonymous]

Dear Directus Veritas,

I wish that more people would do fact checks like this and call people out that bend the truth. Axelson is a discredit to the E-J because he doesn't report, he makes up stories according to if he likes or dislikes a person. Its evident who he is voting for on Nov 6 and he needs to not reveal that if he wants to be considered a reporter. I personally don't read the E-J because there is no news in that "newspaper" and Axelson is so mean spirited that he puts a damper on my day. This too will pass so if Eckenroth gets rid of his attack dog, maybe I'll give it another try. By the way, what did Coronado CAN do to make Axelson so mad at them?

[Pat Cooley]

Thanks for the clarity. I hope everyone has a chance to read this.

[Pat Cooley]

I just read it again and I want to congratulate the person that did this greatly detailed, comparative, eye-opening work (with the videos as proof...) I want everyone in Coronado to be aware of the incorrect information Mr. Reporter spouts. This BIASED guy has been "up to these tricks for awhile now."

[Robert111554]

To anonymous:

What did Coronado CAN do? They put on the best and most enlightening forum this town has ever seen!

[Kevin Reilly]

I personally shepherded the development of the questions for the Coronado CAN! Forum through a fairly rigorous process involving many people and different levels of review starting about last June (and I was also involved in many of the preparations for the Forum). Of course there were many other people involved as well, and more meetings than anyone wants to even think about!

For what it’s worth, from my perspective the “Facts” as presented above are, for the most part, correct. I would offer the following additional clarifications with regard to development of the questions:

- The development of the topic areas and questions occurred over several months and many meetings. We originally were thinking of two-minute answers, so given seven candidates that meant we only had time for perhaps seven or eight questions if the forum was to be kept under 90 minutes. Mr Cubbison recommended going to one-minute answers which helped, but ultimately we still had far too much material and not enough time. Plus we didn’t want to be subject to criticism like “How come you didn’t use the question I gave you?” any more than necessary.

Our solution was to do two things: (1) increase the length of the Forum to two hours (which we really didn’t want to do, but did anyway) and (2) do something more efficient than just asking questions. If you ask someone “How’s the weather?” you might get a long response, but if you simply say “The sun is out” and ask them to agree or disagree, it moves a lot faster.

In a private meeting with Casey at Rotary Plaza after the Historical Association Mayoral Forum I proposed the idea of statements, as well as the idea of using colors to indicate positions and differences between candidates. Casey endorsed the plan. We also talked about the rumor that Coronado CAN! was a “Barbara Denny group” and, even though the group had both Denny and Tanaka constituents (and fully committed to being absolutely non-partisan), my desire that he choose one of his supporters to review the questions just to be certain that no credence could ever be lent to that idea. The next day I proposed the statement idea to Barbara, gained her endorsement, and we moved forward.

The first step was to turn the questions into statements that essentially represented the short answers we basically thought the audience would be interested to hear, one way or the other. The candidates could either agree or disagree. The idea was to do a few statements in a topic area, and then ask a question that would enable the candidates to clarify or provide more detail on any “answers” they had given on the few statements up to that point.

After the statements were initially developed, three reviews took place in quick succession.

The first review was by a knowledgeable person in Coronado issues. Over several hours we “wordsmithed” the statements and gave them an initial clean-up.

The second review was by a collegiate debate coach and professor. This review also took several hours as his debate expertise proved to be invaluable.

The third review was with the person Casey recommended. The goals of this session were to (1) remove any anti-Casey bias, if there was any (2) prioritize the statements within the topic areas, and (3) reword the statements so as to engender responses that would differentiate the candidates’ opinions to the maximum extent.

If you look at the statements and the range of responses in the Coronado CAN! “Voter’s Guide” you can see why I feel very good about our success in achieving all three goals in that third review. Although the tedium of 56 statements did require periodic breaks where we talked about other things, we did work diligently for about five hours and I didn’t leave until we had finished the entire list. (The person Casey recommended also has a lot of experience in Coronado issues, and by then I had had so much interaction with the candidates, and had been to so many other forums, that together we had what I think proved to be a fortuitous combination of good ideas about how to phrase the statements to highlight projected differences of opinion. The wide range of results speak for themselves.)

I had planned a fourth review with another well-respected individual knowledgeable in Coronado issues but, unfortunately, an exigency prevented his participation at the last minute.

The final review took place back in a group setting when went through the entire “Moderator’s Guide” with Gene Cubbison in the Winn Room. Minor changes to the order and priorities of the statements within two or three topic areas were made but, for the most part, that was it.

Quite honestly I would challenge any group using volunteer labor to generate a more comprehensive and unbiased list of statements relating to Coronado issues. I’m not saying it can’t be done but good luck! In the meantime I remain disappointed that Casey has elected to criticize the Forum as being oriented toward Barbara Denny in light of the level of effort and the very intelligent people involved in ensuring that this would not be the case. In addition, the fact that he alone was granted the privilege of having his own self-appointed reviewer who, as it turned out, turned out to be the last one, should not be overlooked. And if anyone would like to point out which questions could be interpreted to specifically favor one candidate or the other, I would be happy to point out which statements could be interpreted exactly the opposite way. More than that, Coronado CAN! has also received criticism from Barbara Denny relating to bias in the Forum so, to some extent, if both candidates are unhappy for different reasons, we feel like we must have done a pretty good job of being fair!

More than the above, I am available to discuss with any person the thinking behind any of the statements or questions asked at the Forum. Most likely there is a lot more thought behind them than you might at first have imagined but, if you can do a better job, we will appreciate your help at the next Forum we sponsor!!!

Kevin Reilly

[ann sonne]

Thank you for posting this article/fact-check. When I read the article in the Eagle, I wondered why Mr. Axelson didn't have to pay for his article like other citizens who wrote to support a specific candidate. His accusation of questions slanted to favor Barbara Denny was absurd and an obvious partisan allegation made in support of Casey Tanaka. Different rules for different folks? Pay up, Mr. Axelson!

[Donald Fink]

In this rebuttal accusing the Eagle-Journal reporter of a personal bias, the author uses the alias of "Directus Veritas" for some unknown reason. It would have added weight to their argument if he/she used their real name instead of hiding in anonymity. Also, the first question that entered my mind when I started reading the rebuttal was "Is "Directus Veritas" a member or official of Coronado CAN and speaking on their behalf?" The second question was "Why didn't the author use their real name to add weight to their rebuttal?" Based on the information in the rebuttal I'd say yes they are a member/official and why they're hiding behind an alias is an explanation they'll have to make.

In my opinion, if you're going to express your opinion in a public forum (newspaper, town hall, blog, website, etc.) then show us you are sincere enough to use your real name and your affiliation to Coronado CAN otherwise your credibility is suspect. Please note, I have given my name as the author of this comment instead of hiding behind an alias. Why, because it is the responsible and adult thing to do.

As for Eagle-Journal, is there a bias? Of course there's a bias just as there is a bias in every newspaper. I don't regard the Eagle-Journal as a serious newspaper and I don't give their paper much thought. It takes me about 2 minutes to read the paper and throw it into the recycle bin.

As for this rebuttal by "Directus Veritas", I'll do the cyber equivalent of recycling it because the lack of sincerity of the author to identify his- or herself.

[Pat Cooley]

blah blah blah blah...

Over and over he said it.

"It would have added weight to their argument if he/she used their real name instead of hiding in..."
"Why didn't the author use their real name to add weight to their rebuttal?"
"use your real name"
"the lack of sincerity of the author to identify his- or herself."