It’s been an interesting and sometimes feisty week on the Daily Journal opinion page. We led off with longtime columnist Sue Lempert describing the meeting that led to the appointment of Amourence Lee to the City Council. In a separate piece, San Mateo Mayor Diane Papan defended her tie-breaking vote for Lee and said she made that call for the sake of unity. Later in the week, we had Nicole Fernandez extolling Lee’s virtues and breadth of experience while shaming those who said Lee was named because of ethnicity, her North Central neighborhood and political maneuvering.
We also had an op-ed by Pacifica resident Bill Collins opposing the community college district’s plans for a wellness center at the Cañada campus because it doesn’t exactly fit into its core mission. Then columnist Mark Simon came out swinging on that piece in his Thursday column suggesting the athletic club at CSM is a benefit for the community and students, going so far as to describe his own experience with it.
Who knows what might come next? But one thing is clear: Everyone is well within their First Amendment rights here and it’s sometimes good to have people mixing it up on our pages.
Allow me to weigh in on the two topics before I get to the next point, which is how to use our pages to share information and opinion. First of all, apparently the appointment process for the vacant San Mateo City Council seat was a bit tense, but these are tense times. It’s a bit soon to judge how any new councilmember will do, but I’m guessing Amourence Lee will do just fine. She’s active and engaged, knowledgeable and passionate. From what I can tell, she is a good listener and quick learner. Isn’t that what we want from our councilmembers? Granted, there were other candidates who were also capable, and the city is fortunate to have so many people willing and able to lend a hand to fill the vacancy. The split vote was not a reflection of Lee, or Planning Commissioner Ellen Mallory, another highly qualified candidate who initially received two votes. It was rather a reflection of the split nature of public opinion in San Mateo right now. That’s a whole other topic but I think Lempert nailed it with her assessment that the balance of power has shifted. However you feel about it, Lee was named to the council and sworn in Monday. She is our newest member of the City Council and it’s important to note it’s not easy suddenly having to transition to such a high-profile role. And Papan’s vote wasn’t easy. So let’s be supportive.
Recommended for you
About the community college district, both Simon and Collins make good points and it comes down to how you feel about super nice buildings and bond measures. Nearly everyone knows the new community college buildings are fantastic. Are they a waste of money? That’s in the eye of the beholder. You can say having a health club accessible to the community that makes money for the school is creative, or you could say it’s mission creep.
But like I said, everyone is within their First Amendment rights.
Speaking of that amendment, while it guarantees freedom of speech and the press (that’s me!) it also protects the right to protest. So our opinion page reflects all of that. If you ever want to weigh in, your best bet is a letter to the editor. Keeping them around 250 words is key. Sometimes shorter is better. If you are ever interested in writing a guest perspective, also known as an op-ed, it’s best to check in with me first about the topic and timeline. Guest perspectives are typically on their own topic, and aren’t written in response to an article or another opinion piece. They are about 600 words, with a minimum of 500 words and a maximum of 780. Another thing to note is that letters to the editor are not “articles,” only news or sports stories are articles. Letters are letters. The regular columns you see are columns, not editorials. Editorials are written by me, but reflect the viewpoint of the Daily Journal staff and are unsigned. No matter what you call them, opinions and exchanges of information are key to a well-informed and lively community. We should have more of that, feisty or not, though I always prefer civilized analysis. Either way, I’m glad our opinion page can be home for that manner of forum.
Jon Mays is the editor in chief of the Daily Journal. He can be reached at jon@smdailyjournal.com. Follow Jon on Twitter @jonmays.
No, Jon, the community college district's luxury membership only health clubs cannot be evaluated in the "eyes of the beholder" or worse, by the members who benefit from them. That's an after the fact rationalization. The issue is trust in our government leaders, especially when we have given them over $1 billion dollars in bond funds to upgrade the colleges for the benefit of the students. Bait and switch (or quid pro quo), voters & taxpayers need to trust that their elected leaders will follow the law which requires bond measures to identify the specific projects to be built with bond money. If these costly & extravagant facilities were such a good idea, then they should have been identified on the ballot.
Jon, about the Cañada College athletic facility you stated, “...it comes down to how you feel about super nice buildings and bond measures. Nearly everyone knows the new community college buildings are fantastic.”
In my opinion, the issue is whether “super nice buildings” serve an educational purpose. I have seen schematics for some of these structures. I am surprised to see classrooms that resemble traditional 19th century schoolhouse: rows of chairs lines up like a corn field, without power outlets available to students throughout, and lacking flexibility to reorganize into different configurations in line with active learning pedagogy.
The issue of government accountability is important too. Some citizens claim that the original bond measure misled the voting public. Yes, the buildings are “fantastic” and provide opportunities for wellness for community members, senior citizens, and the disabled. I support that. But, was that the original purpose that people voted for or has there been “mission creep?” We can’t demand better representation by our federal government without holding our local government accountable to be good stewards and transparent with bond dollars.
While I can see with my own eyes gorgeous buildings at SMCCCD, I’d prefer to think educators are focused on building students’ minds and developing their lives. Huge new edifices don’t do that; faculty and staff do. How about SMCCCD focusing on a new employee contract? It might not stand for forty years, but just think of all the lives changed from good teaching and learning?
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(4) comments
Jon- I want to thank you for giving everyone an opportunity to express themselves. You have a great Opinion section and a great newspaper. Keep it up.
Bravo Chris, your replies are stellar!
No, Jon, the community college district's luxury membership only health clubs cannot be evaluated in the "eyes of the beholder" or worse, by the members who benefit from them. That's an after the fact rationalization. The issue is trust in our government leaders, especially when we have given them over $1 billion dollars in bond funds to upgrade the colleges for the benefit of the students. Bait and switch (or quid pro quo), voters & taxpayers need to trust that their elected leaders will follow the law which requires bond measures to identify the specific projects to be built with bond money. If these costly & extravagant facilities were such a good idea, then they should have been identified on the ballot.
Jon, about the Cañada College athletic facility you stated, “...it comes down to how you feel about super nice buildings and bond measures. Nearly everyone knows the new community college buildings are fantastic.”
In my opinion, the issue is whether “super nice buildings” serve an educational purpose. I have seen schematics for some of these structures. I am surprised to see classrooms that resemble traditional 19th century schoolhouse: rows of chairs lines up like a corn field, without power outlets available to students throughout, and lacking flexibility to reorganize into different configurations in line with active learning pedagogy.
The issue of government accountability is important too. Some citizens claim that the original bond measure misled the voting public. Yes, the buildings are “fantastic” and provide opportunities for wellness for community members, senior citizens, and the disabled. I support that. But, was that the original purpose that people voted for or has there been “mission creep?” We can’t demand better representation by our federal government without holding our local government accountable to be good stewards and transparent with bond dollars.
While I can see with my own eyes gorgeous buildings at SMCCCD, I’d prefer to think educators are focused on building students’ minds and developing their lives. Huge new edifices don’t do that; faculty and staff do. How about SMCCCD focusing on a new employee contract? It might not stand for forty years, but just think of all the lives changed from good teaching and learning?
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.