Supervisor Hill / "Facebook Ads" question, please

TO: Sharon McMahan, Treasurer, Friends of Adam Hill, County Supervisor 2016

Hello Sharon,

I'm researching a story, and I was just looking over Supervisor Hill's latest campaign finance disclosure form (Form 460, page 25 embedded at the end of this email), and I'm a little confused on some of the entries, and I was hoping you could help clear up a couple of things.

My question involves the "Nonmonetary Contributions Received" section, where it shows numerous "Nonmonetary Contributions" (with a "Fair Market Value" of over $2,000) from "Adam Hill, District 3 Supervisor," for "Facebook Ads."

That's where I'm a little confused. I'm not clear on how Supervisor Hill can "contribute" Facebook ads to his own campaign. It kind of makes it sound like Supervisor Hill owns Facebook, and he's donating thousands of dollars of "Fair Market Value" ad space from his business to his own campaign.

So, now I'm wondering if those listings might be in the incorrect section of the Form 460, and should actually be listed in the "Payments Made" section.

That seems to make a lot more sense (at least to me it does), where Supervisor Hill's campaign is actually making payments to Facebook for "Facebook Ads."

So, that's my question: In Supervisor Hill's latest Form 460, are the "Facebook Ads," listed in the "Nonmonetary Contributions Received" section, incorrectly listed, and should actually be in the "Payments Made" section?

and;

And, if they are correctly listed in the "Nonmonetary Contributions Received" section, how does that work, where Supervisor Hill can donate thousands of dollars of "Facebook ads," with a "Fair Market Value" down to the penny, to his own campaign? I don't understand. Please explain.

I'm sure everything's on the up and up, I'm just a little confused on the donated Facebook ads because I don't see that arrangement on other candidates' 460s.

Thank you,

Ron

P.S. Below's the screen shot of the 460, and I also wanted to let you know that this email automatically posted to my blog, SewerWatch, at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/

Thanks again : -)

 

--   

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

sewerwatch.blogspot.com

Pandora Nash-Karner "credibility" question, please

TO: Sandra Duerr, Editor, The Tribune, San Luis Obispo

Hello Sandra,

I'm researching a story, and I was recently looking over one of my previous blog entries (from 2007), at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2007/05/she-is-los-osos.html

... where I exposed an email from Los Osos resident, and professional marketer/political consultant, Pandora Nash-Karner, to her "undisclosed recipient list," involving the 2005 Los Osos CSD recall election, where she writes:

"Hello all,

It's time to launch a serious letter writing campaign to the local media."

and;

"Attached is a lengthy list of ideas for letters to the editor... Just use the ideas as CONCEPTS to write your own original letter."

and;

"Joyce Albright found out today that the Tribune will be allowing a section, once per week, on the sewer issue. Please do NOT copy the concepts in your letter, otherwise, the media will recognize our efforts as a group effort and we lose our credibility."

Now, I've noticed that, in the years since I've exposed how Nash-Karner coordinates "serious letter writing campaign to the local media," as part of her "behavior based marketing" "strategies," that the Tribune has published several more letters from Nash-Karner, including at this, October 23, 2014, link:

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article39500937.html

... involving an upcoming Los Osos CSD election, and this, March 2, 2014, link:

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article39469821.html

... involving another local government issue.

In this link:

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article39471081.html

... also from March 2014, your reporter actually uses Nash-Karner as a source in a story about the Los Osos sewer project.

And there are many, many more examples, published by the Tribune, after I exposed that Nash-Karner writes things to her "recipients," like, "Please do NOT copy the concepts in your letter, otherwise, the media will recognize our efforts as a group effort and we lose our credibility."

Additionally, I also exposed (over a decade ago) how, on her marketing business web site, at this link:

http://pandoraarts.com/pandoraandcompany/about.html

... she refers to the media as "tools."

Here's the screenshot [I've embedded it in this email. Hopefully you can view it]:

See? "We use a wide range of tools (for our behavior based marketing strategies), including... the media."

So, with all of that in mind, here's my question:

When Nash-Karner wrote, back in 2005, as part of her coordinated, "serious letter writing campaign to the local media":

"Please do NOT copy the concepts in your letter, otherwise, the media will recognize our efforts as a group effort and we lose our credibility."

... she was wrong about that, right?

In other words, even though the Trib knows that Nash-Karner "uses" your newspaper as a "tool" for her coordinated, "behavior based marketing" "strategies," you still give her "credibility."

So, again, when she writes, "the media will recognize our efforts as a group effort and we lose our credibility," she was wrong about that, and the Trib just doesn't care if they're being "used" as a professional marketing "tool" to influence local government, right?

I mean, the Trib does STILL give Nash-Karner credibility (a lot of it), so, obviously, she was wrong about the "losing credibility in the media" thing, which, would also mean that the Trib just doesn't care if they're being "used" as a professional marketing "tool" to influence local government, right?

I'd love to hear/read your thoughts on this subject. It's such an interesting journalism ethics discussion.

As always, much thanks,

Ron

Oh, and, P.S: This email automatically posted to my blog, SewerWatch, at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/

Thanks again.

--   

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

sewerwatch.blogspot.com

"The illusory 'cheaper solution in Los Osos'" clarification, please

Hello Supervisor Gibson,

I'm researching a story, and I was reading your recent editorial, "Paso water basin debate sounds a lot like painful struggle over Los Osos sewer," in the Trib, at this link:

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article58857173.html

... and, in it, you write:

"Bargaining is more subtle and challenging to counter: 'OK, I want a solution, but not this one. There's one that costs half as much.' The illusory 'cheaper solution' cost huge amounts of time, effort and money in Los Osos, and it's now being promoted by some in the Paso basin."

If you have a spare minute, I'm hoping you could give me a quick clarification on what you mean by "the illusory 'cheaper solution' in Los Osos."

When you write, "the illusory 'cheaper (sewer) solution' in Los Osos," you're referring to theSolution Group's, 1998, "better, cheaper, faster" (than the County's then-"ready-to-go" sewer project) "alternative" sewer project, that relied on 70-acres of sewage ponds in the middle of Los Osos, and was "the basis" for forming the Los Osos CSD in the first place (in 1998), and solely responsible for stopping the County's then-"ready-to-go" project, yet, that so-called "project" ultimately failed after the newly-formed LOCSD wasted two years (and a lot of money) chasing it, and that I first exposed was on the verge of failing in my July 2000, New Times cover story, archived at this link:

http://archive.newtimesslo.com/archive/2003-09-11/archives/cov_stories_2000/cov_07062000.html

... and, almost immediately after my story was published, "better, cheaper, faster" officially failed. (Although my subsequent reporting would go on to expose that "better, cheaper, faster" actually failed months before my story was published, and that LOCSD officials lied to me, and the editors at New Times, about the status of their disaster in that story.)

Here's a graphic of the cover art for my story:

If you look closely, you'll see that it shows the words "better, cheaper, faster" going down a toilet.

So, again, that's the "the illusory 'cheaper solution' in Los Osos" that you're referring to, right?: The Solution Group's failed, 1998 - 2000, "better, cheaper, faster" non-project, right?

The same "illusory 'cheaper solution'" that then-staff member for the California Coastal Commission, Steve Monowitz,  in October 1998, just one month before the election that would form the Los Osos Community Services District (on the back of the Solution Group alternative), wrote:

"Pursuit of the Solution Group alternative also has the potential to result in significant delays to the implementation of a wastewater treatment project for the Los Osos area."

Wow, Steve nailed it there, huh? That was in 1998, and, here we all are, in 2016, and had the Solution Group, and their so-called "consultants" -- many of whom would go on toprofit off of their fake project (still are, as a matter of fact) -- had simply not proposed their fake project in 1998, the county's then-"ready-to-go" project would have been up and running probably sometime in the year 2000.

Which means that the Solution Group alternative -- a disaster that was predicted, by numerous experts, would never work (and it never did, of course) -- is solely (repeat: solely) responsible for the past 16 years of Los Osos sewer delay, and, shockingly, as I recently (re)exposed at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2016/01/30-years-of-pooling-human-waste-and.html

... "One million gallons per day of sewage continues to be discharged to the (Los Osos) community's groundwater and seeps to Morro Bay State and National Estuary. (A sewer in Los Osos) will end human waste discharges to Morro Bay, end health hazards of surfacing effluent," according to the local state water board.

So, I'm sure you can understand how important it is for my overall story here, that I get this statement:

"The illusory 'cheaper solution' cost huge amounts of time, effort and money in Los Osos..."

... clarified.

So, again, you're referring to the Solution Group's failed, 1998 - 2000, "better, cheaper, faster" non-project, that the Solution Group/LOCSD wasted two years, and a ton of public money, chasing, right?

If so, then, not only did that disaster "cost huge amounts of time, effort and money," as you so accurately point out, but it is also directly responsible for one the largest (if not THE largest) wo/man-made water pollution events in human history -- over 5 billion gallons: "One million gallons" of water pollution per day, for the past 16 years... and counting, including today, tomorrow, the next day, etc.

So, that's the "illusory 'cheaper solution'" you're referring to, right? The Solution Group's failed, 1998 - 2000, "better, cheaper, faster" disaster, right?

Thank you in advance for your prompt response,

Ron

P.S. This email automatically posted to my blog, SewerWatch, at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/

Thanks again.

--   

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

sewerwatch.blogspot.com

Does Tom Fulks Work for poliARC?

TO: Paul Hughes, owner, poliARC

Hello Paul,

I'm researching a story, and I noticed how, on Supervisor Hill's latest Form 460 [attached], it shows numerous "Payments Made" (totaling about $10,000), to "poliARC - Paul Hughes, Grover Beach, CA," for, "WEB."

Now, on the Facebook page of local political... uh... "consultant" [finger quotes], Tom Fulks, Fulks writes:

"My name is Tom Fulks. SLOSense is my idea. I'm using programming help from PoliARC, which has done work for Adam Hill and a lot of other clients."

Additionally, about a year ago, I posted a piece on my blog, SewerWatch, at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2014/08/san-luis-obispo-county-supervisor-bruce.html

... where I show how local politicians, like Bruce Gibson, and Jim Patterson, pay Fulks (from their campaign funds) tens of thousands of dollars to be their little, "evil genius in the back room" (Gibson's phrase), where Fulks then sneaks around on the Internet (and other places, including behind-the-scenes places that the public can't see/hear), in a paid effort to destroy the reputations of anyone (especially media types) that is/are publicly critical of his clients, the local politicians.

[Quick, funny note here: That's WHY I put Tom's title of "political consultant" in finger quotes, because using the word "consultant" to describe Tom's job is WAYYYY too euphemistic for my taste. I mean, local politicians pay him tens of thousands of dollars to sneak around the Internet, and other places, to destroy the lives (or, at least attempt to destroy the lives) of anyone that's critical of his clients. That doesn't sound like "political consulting" to me. If you ask me, a much more accurate title for Tom's job?: "Professional character assassin, hired by local politicians." See? Funny.]

So, with all that in mind, I'm just curious: Considering that local politicians pay Fulks BIG bucks to be their sneaky, little, "evil genius in the back room," and that Tom writes that he uses "programming help from PoliARC, which has done work for (County Supervisor) Adam Hill and a lot of other clients," and poliARC is paid thousands of dollars by the Hill campaign for "WEB," (and, I'll hold the "[finger quotes]" on that classification... for now ; -), does Tom have any financial connection to poliARC?

In other words, is any of that thousands of dollars that the Hill campaign pays your company for, "WEB," making it to Tom Fulks' bank account? Does Tom do any... uh, "consulting" for poliARC?

Considering all of the overlap, it seems like Fulks could be Adam Hill's highly paid, sneaky, little, "evil genius in the back room," as well.

So, again, I'm just curious: Is he?

Thank you,

Ron

P.S. This email automatically posted to my blog, SewerWatch, at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/

Thanks again : -)

--   

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

sewerwatch.blogspot.com