Department of Corrections

Our post about Saturday's League of Women Voter's panel discussion on journalism and the Internet contained a couple errors and/or omissions.

We were critical of the lack of local bloggers on the panel, but we should first note that panelist and Pomona College Assistant Professor of English Meg Worley does have a good deal of practice commenting on the local level (here's an example of why we especially like it when she too-infrequently blogs on M-M-M-My Pomona, which she started almost two years ago), though the League apparently was unaware of Professor Worley's experience when they invited her. It is a happy coincidence, though.

The League should host a Chaucer or a graphic novel panel someday, Professor Worley has considerable knowledge in those areas as well, and the talk would probably be even more interesting than Saturday's discussion.

We also want to point out that another of the LWV's panelists, Pomona College political science professor John Seery, does blog on the Huffington Post. This was an obvious oversight on our part. Our apologies to Professor Seery for that error.

* * * * *

On the other hand, what the Insider giveth, the Insider taketh away:

We're still not entirely sure, however, that the LWV's inclusion of Worley and Seery changes our main criticism of the event. In our view, the Claremont LWV's problem has been its irritating tendency to take a macro approach to issues while ignoring what's happening on the local or hyperlocal level. So, they failed to act as a public voice authority in when the Preserve Claremont mess was going on a few years ago, or when invested in the Orange County Investment Pool in the early 1990's, or any of the other official and semi-official missteps by our local leaders in the past 20 years. From our vantage, the LWV's silence has contributed as much to these problems as the actual mistakes City Hall has committed.

As we indicated, Worley's inclusion by the LWV doesn't seem to have been because of her actual experience, though it is quite welcome. It appears to be something more of a happy coincidence.

What strikes us as strange about Seery is that while he is a very active blogger, to our knowledge he has not trained his blogging eye on his own town. It can't be for lack of interest. Seery was a founding president of the Friends of the Claremont Pooch Park and was a Claremont Community Services commissioner.

In 2001, Seery was also very involved in trying to fight Measure A, an anti-conflict of interest law that ended up passing, despite the best efforts of the Claremont 400 to stir up a sort of hysteria against the referendum. (We always suspected the real force behind the anti-Measure A folks was former City Manager Glenn Southard, who couldn't tolerate anything that might bring closer scrutiny to his operations.)

After the measure passed and became municipal law, Claremont and several other California cities that passed similar measures went to court in a failed attempt to have the law overturned. The state courts upheld the law. Seery, however, resigned his commission seat in an angry fit, as the LA Times reported in April, 2002:

After two Claremont city commissioners resigned to avoid questions of conflict of interest, the council passed a resolution indemnifying any elected or appointed official sued under this law.

John Seery, Pomona College's politics department chairman, sat through many long meetings about sewer services as a volunteer community services commissioner. But Seery decided he had to step down because the college often contracted with the city.

As a result of the law, "my right to participate in civic life in Claremont had been sabotaged," he said. "Serving as commissioner implicated me in many affairs of the college that would not normally come under conflict of interest."

"Our commissioners should not have to be concerned by the restrictions of the ordinance," Claremont Mayor Paul Held said. "Good and qualified people will be discouraged" from entering civic life.

Seery's and Held's hysterics notwithstanding, Measure A hasn't stopped any college employees or their spouses from serving on the city council or on any city commissions, and everyone's "right to participate in civic life" has continued on as before, only with the requirement of a little more disclosure and/or people having to abstain from votes where there could be the perception of an economic interest on the part of the person casting the vote.

Really, the only difference was that Claremont civic life went on without John Seery, who took his ball and went home.

Seery was also involved with Residents United for Claremont, a Claremont 400 PAC that tried to influence the 2003 city election with a last-minute, city-wide mailer. That effort was a pre-cursor to the Preserve Claremonsters, and was led by Human Services Commissioner Valerie Martinez, who was later a PC spokesperson.

Below, we've posted an image of the Residents United mailing from 2003. The mailing address was State Farm Insurance agent Randy Prout's office. The red arrows indicate former or then-current councilmembers or commissioners. One current councilmember's name is circled. Incidentally, two of the three endorsees, Karen Rosenthal and Al Leiga, lost.

(Click to Enlarge)

The Dog That Did Not Bark

We can learn from history. In Claremont, we learn that with the Claremont 400 and their fellow travelers, history doesn't necessarily repeat itself. There's no intellectual consistency. Part of the reason the Insider too often dredges up historical events is that these events are available to us. If we tried to show things using future events, that would be speculative and not too convincing.

In that vein, we want to remind folks about the mean-spirited and clearly orchestrated attack that took place against one particular school board candidate in the last election. An element used in the attack was the church-state separation issue we have examined the past few days with respect to 2007 candidate Beth Bingham.

On a single day, October 12, 2005, the Claremont Courier printed five separate letters, all from college faculty members (four from Pomona College, one from Pitzer College), all similarly attacking 2005 candidate Kris Meyer. One letter quotes Nobel Laureate James Watson--a fraught endeavor given Watson's recent fall from grace. One calls Meyer a "scary guy" and goes on, in quite rational and measured professorial tones to say that Meyer can "spout cockamamie creationist theory in the privacy of his own home..." Another refers to Meyer's writing as "an incoherent rant". Say what you will, these are at least passionate people and the Insider hopes they treat their students with more courtesy than they treat their political foes. (We provide the letters opposite these paragraphs because we think they are instructive. Click on the small images for a readable image. We did some cutting and pasting for continuity and coherence and we don't think we messed up anywhere; not intentionally in any event.)

What surprises us--well, it doesn't really surprise us--is that there is no such orchestrated and passionate defense of the separation of church and state this year with an ordained, active minister running for office. We are shocked--shocked! It's the dog that did not bark. So, with apologies to Professor John Seery at Pomona, we will write the letter he doubtless would have written had his vigilant citizen cabal brought this issue to his attention. (His original letter is the middle one in the group to the right, under the head VIGILANCE: Thanks.)


Dear Editor,

I'd like to express my gratitude to several vigilant Claremont citizens and the Claremont Insider for alerting the rest of us to school board candidate Beth Bingham's stealth agenda and deceptive tactics.

In a letter to the COURIER (and I join others in urging the COURIER, as an act of public service and in the spirit of full disclosure to reprint her letter), Bingham has taken very adamant stances on school issues (decrying, for instance, the use of business concepts in the management of the school district, and a concern for the wall of separation between church and state when it's someone else's religion), and yet she reveals none of these positions in her current campaign literature.

My own view is that we need to elect board members who will exemplify high standards of integrity, candor and transparency. My question: Do the Claremont residents now displaying Beth Bingham signs know the full story about her views and nonetheless support them and her campaign, or have they been misled into believing she is simply a straightforward "children's" candidate.

definitely not written by John Seery

Claremont, CA

The point here is not to pile on Beth Bingham--though she felt compelled in her letter of November 5, 2005 to pile on Kris Meyer (linked two paragraphs above and here also). The point is that these crudely- and transparently-orchestrated attacks are well-oiled parts of the Claremont machine. It is never enough to put forward your own positions--in fact, that is seldom done. Gathering testimonials and lists of the usual suspect supporters is their way. Better to demonize and smear your opponent than to engage. Think of Glenn Southard's smearing of Obie Landrum, or the queasy activities of Preserve Claremont.