IOLERO Audit Uncovers Incomplete Investigations in Sonoma County Sheriff's Office.

"21st Century Policing Task Force Report."

Pete Souza, March 2, 2015.

Public Domain.

via Wikimedia Commons.

In a recent Press Democrat article, Emma Murphy and Colin Atagi discuss an audit conducted by Sonoma County's Independent Office of Law Enforcement Review and Outreach (IOLERO). The audit revealed that out of 36 internal investigations into disciplinary cases within the Sheriff's Office over the past six years, half were incomplete. Four cases specifically involved policy violations that received inadequate punishments. As a civilian-led oversight agency, IOLERO's role is to audit the Sheriff's Office's internal investigations and recommend policy changes and disciplinary actions when necessary.

The report highlighted cases involving excessive use of force by deputies, inappropriate relationships with confidential informants, and inaccurate information transmitted by dispatchers. The most severe case concerned a deputy's excessive use of force in 2020, which IOLERO concluded should have resulted in termination. Other cases involved a deputy with an inappropriate relationship with a confidential informant, a county jail correctional deputy's excessive use of force against an inmate, and a dispatcher who created an entry implying a husband involved in a domestic violence incident was violent without factual basis.

Sonoma County Sheriff Eddie Engram attributed the high number of incomplete investigations to differing definitions of "complete investigations" between the Sheriff's Office and IOLERO. He expressed confidence that the ratio of incomplete reports would decrease in the next annual report, as he and IOLERO Director John Alden have begun discussing how to define a complete investigation.

The report coincides with Alden and Engram's pledge to improve their shared work, marking a major step forward for IOLERO and the Sheriff's Office, following a historically combative relationship between the two organizations. IOLERO's report also marked a significant milestone, as the agency has cleared its backlog of investigations, allowing the six-member office to carry out its key responsibility of auditing the Sheriff's Office internal investigations more quickly.

From the perspective of school board trustees, I feel that these recent findings could be concerning when evaluating proposals for school resource officers (SROs) in Sonoma County. As trustees are responsible for ensuring the safety and well-being of students, staff, and the school community, the quality and effectiveness of any potential program must be carefully assessed in light of these revelations. The report highlights the need for improved transparency, communication, and accountability within the Sheriff's Office, which directly impacts the SRO program and the level of trust that school board members and the community at large can place in it for those jurisdictions that contract with the Sheriff's Office for services.

To make informed decisions, school board trustees should closely monitor the progress made by the Sheriff's Office and IOLERO in defining and implementing complete investigations and addressing policy violations. It is essential that the collaboration between law enforcement agencies and IOLERO results in proper training, guidance, and oversight, while also addressing concerns raised by parents, students, and the broader community. Additionally, trustees should continue to consider alternative methods of providing safety and support to schools, such as implementing mental health programs, restorative justice practices, or peer mediation initiatives. By actively engaging in discussions and decision-making processes, school board trustees can better evaluate the overall safety and well-being of Sonoma County schools.

Protecting Communities: Addressing Toxic Chemical Releases.

ExxonMobil's Baytown, Texas Refinery.

© 2008 Baytownbert.

CC BY-SA 3.0

via Wikimedia Commons.

In an article by Eric Lipton in today's New York Times, the Biden administration's efforts to curb health threats caused by toxic chemicals from petrochemical plants are discussed. As the debate surrounding these health threats intensifies, families living near petrochemical plants, like the López family in Deer Park, Texas, are directly affected. The Biden administration is aiming to impose restrictions on toxic air releases and ban or restrict some of the most hazardous chemicals. However, companies are pressuring the administration to loosen some of the rules, fearing economic repercussions.

Toxic chemical releases are happening regularly in the Deer Park area, sometimes without notification to residents. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is cracking down on carcinogens released by plants such as the OxyVinyls plastics manufacturing plant across the highway from the López family. Over the past two years, records show the release of numerous toxic chemicals in the area, including some the Biden administration is preparing to impose new restrictions on.

As I reviewed this article, I recalled the German legal principle of "Vorsorgeprinzip," or the precautionary principle, that analytically should play a significant role in addressing the issues surrounding toxic chemical releases. This doctrine emphasizes the importance of taking preventive measures when an action or policy has the potential to cause harm to the public or the environment, even when scientific evidence is incomplete or inconclusive. If the Vorsorgeprinzip were applied to these chemical plants, it would require proactive action to minimize potential health risks and environmental damage.

In light of the precautionary principle, the EPA's proposed policies, that aim to remove a loophole that allows toxic chemical discharges during bad storms, plant malfunctions, or start-ups and shutdowns, are clearly warranted. The EPA also plans to require many chemical plants to monitor air at their fence lines for six key toxics to ensure compliance with the rules. By taking a more preventive approach, these policies aim to protect residents like those in Deer Park from potential harm.

Recent studies have shown that about 100,000 people living within six miles of chemical plants, mostly in Texas and Louisiana, have an elevated risk of cancer. In Houston, a separate study found elevated levels of formaldehyde, which can increase the risk of developing cancer if the levels persist. Another study found a 56% increased risk of acute lymphocytic leukemia among children living within two miles of the Houston Ship Channel compared to those living at least 10 miles away. Under the Vorsorgeprinzip, these findings warrant immediate and decisive action to reduce the risks posed by these plants.

Implementing the precautionary principle in addressing the issues surrounding petrochemical plants would lead to more stringent regulations and proactive measures to protect public health and the environment. While this approach may result in higher costs for the industry, it prioritizes the well-being of communities like the López family and others living near these facilities.

The New Geography of US Clean Energy Manufacturing.

"Solar Panels at Topaz Solar 1."
2014 Sarah Swenty/USFWS.
Public Domain.
via Wikimedia Commons.

In today's New York Times, Jim Tankersley and Brad Plumer review the impact of President Biden's climate law, finding it is driving more investment in American clean energy manufacturing than initially expected. This surge in investments in battery factories, wind and solar farms, and electric vehicle plants could lead to a significant reduction in fossil fuel emissions. However, the increased economic activity centered around green technology is also driving up costs for taxpayers who are subsidizing these investments.

The article prompted me to think about Paul Krugman's theory of New Economic Geography, and how the investments driven by Biden's climate law are reshaping the spatial distribution of economic activities in the United States. Companies are flocking to areas with abundant land, lower costs, and non-unionized labor, potentially turning these regions into new hubs of clean energy manufacturing. These emerging hubs could experience agglomeration effects, with firms and workers in the same industry clustering together, benefiting from localized knowledge spillovers, specialized suppliers, and a larger labor pool. Interestingly, the growth of clean energy projects in red states also highlights the potential for the law to bridge the gap between traditionally fossil fuel-dependent regions and the emerging green economy, fostering more balanced and sustainable regional development.

Moreover, the article brought to mind Brad DeLong's theory of communities of engineering expertise, and the importance of government investment in creating such communities that drive technological progress and economic growth. By providing substantial tax breaks and incentives for clean energy projects, the Biden administration is fostering an environment that attracts both domestic and international companies to invest in the United States. These investments can lead to the development of localized clusters of expertise in clean energy technologies, which, according to DeLong, are essential for driving innovation and maintaining a competitive edge in the global market.

As more companies, such as South Korean solar company Hanwha Qcells, establish factories and research centers in the United States, the spillover effects can create a virtuous cycle of innovation, job creation, and economic growth. This cycle ultimately reinforces the country's position as a leader in the clean energy sector. While the rising cost estimates have caused some controversy among lawmakers, the long-term benefits of fostering a clean energy economy should not be overlooked.

The increased investments in clean energy manufacturing as a result of Biden's climate law have significant implications for the United States' economic landscape and its fight against climate change. Krugman and DeLong emphasize the role of government intervention in shaping regional development and fostering communities of expertise that drive innovation and growth in the clean energy sector. The economic and geographical implications of these investments may thus be essential to continuing the United States' transition toward a greener economy, as the community of stakeholders continues to expand.

Restoring Trust: The Urgent Need for Ethics Reform in the Supreme Court.

Judge J. Michael Luttig, 2005.
Work of Dept. of Labor, Public Domain.
via Wikimedia Commons. 

The New York Times' Abbie VanSickle reports on the recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, where retired conservative Judge J. Michael Luttig joined legal experts in urging Congress to establish new ethical standards for Supreme Court justices. This call to action comes in light of recent revelations about undisclosed gifts, luxury travel, and property deals involving justices. Judge Luttig contends that Congress has the constitutional power to enact laws prescribing ethical standards for the nonjudicial conduct of Supreme Court justices.

The hearing saw heated debates between Republicans and Democrats on the necessity of such ethical standards. Democrats argued an ethical code is essential to prevent misconduct and conflicts within the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Judge Luttig and other legal experts emphasized the importance of upholding the highest ethical standards to maintain the public's trust in the institution.

Regrettably, recent revelations involving justices such as Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch have highlighted the lack of reporting requirements and the self-policing nature of the justices, sparking increased calls for the establishment of an ethics code. Although all nine justices signed a "statement of ethics principles and practices" outlining their general ethical standards, many argue that this is insufficient and advocate for more stringent measures.

A Marist poll from last week reveals that 62% of Americans lack confidence in the Supreme Court, with only 37% expressing a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the institution. This marks the lowest level of confidence in the Court since 2018, when 59% reported having faith in the institution. The ongoing debate on ethics reform within the Supreme Court highlights the need to restore public trust in this vital institution.

In light of the most recent series of revelations about undisclosed gifts, luxury travel, and property deals, it is clear that the time has come to establish and enforce ethical guidelines that will preserve the integrity of the Supreme Court. The Republican-dominated court has significantly undermined confidence and eroded the public's respect for the institution, which has come to define Americans' belief in their judicial system. An ethics code is not only necessary but also a step towards safeguarding the rule of law in America.

Presidential Limits in the Debt Ceiling Showdown.

14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, page 2.

(Section 4, shown above, concerns public debts.)

Work of NARA, Public Domain. 

via Wikimedia Commons.

As the standoff between House Republicans and President Biden over raising the nation's borrowing limit continues, the administration is reported by the New York Times today to be considering a constitutional challenge to the debt limit based on the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment states that the validity of the public debt of the United States shall not be questioned, which presents an apparent conflict with the current $31.4 trillion statutory borrowing limit. Jim Tankersley, the author of the article, writes that this has led to an intense debate among top economic and legal officials.

President Biden is set to meet with Speaker Kevin McCarthy on May 9 to discuss fiscal policy, but it remains unlikely a compromise can be reached in time to avoid a default. The president has consistently maintained that it is the job of Congress to raise the limit in order to avoid economically catastrophic consequences. Once again, gimmicks meant to circumvent Congress on the debt limit, such as minting a $1 trillion coin to deposit with the Federal Reserve, have surfaced.

It is clear that the federal government is barred from defaulting on the debt, while at same time, only Congress has the power to borrow. Tankersley reports that inside the administration there is an open question about what the Treasury would do if Congress does not raise the limit in time. Officials who support invoking the 14th Amendment and continuing to issue new debt apparently argue that the government would be exposed to lawsuits either way, which I think is correct. However, the right answer here is that the statutory borrowing limit is binding and that an attempt to ignore it would result in an immediate legal challenge that would likely traverse the Supreme Court's shadow docket and result in an affirmation that Congress has the exclusive power to borrow. There are no shortcuts out of this situation; the political branches, the Congress and the Executive, will have to resolve this issue between them.

Addressing Homelessness in Sonoma Valley.

"Sonoma Valley."

© 2020 TJM97.

CC BY-SA 4.0.

via Wikimedia Commons.

My friend Fred Allebach shared a public comment today for the upcoming Sonoma City Council meeting on May 3rd, discussing their three-year action plan to end homelessness. The plan aims to address homelessness and housing as interconnected issues. He argued that the plan should focus on housing first as a preventive measure, rather than prioritizing symptom management. The current process has encouraged collaboration among various organizations, but Allebach pointed out that the fragmented nature of local homeless services could be more effectively organized.

Allebach suggested three considerations for decision-makers in Sonoma and the County: First, focus on providing affordable housing and food through a unified effort. Second, establish a solid equity focus within the City to balance its investment in economic and environmental issues. Lastly, shift the focus from addressing homelessness to promoting prevention and healthy, inclusive, and equitable housing.

Fred highlighted the importance of following the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing ("AFFH") policy and the Housing Element ("HE") in order to promote equity. He encouraged council members to study the plans and hold the City accountable for implementing them. He called on the City to partner with affordable housing advocacy groups to advance local housing solutions and consider renter protection policies.

Finally, Allebach suggested several measures to improve housing production in Sonoma Valley, such as creating a joint housing planning area with the County, focusing on shared services initiatives, and engaging wealthy donors to invest in affordable housing projects.

A key challenge in the Sonoma Valley is the lack of a valley-wide authority that can effectively take action, which Fred noted. The City's annexing the Springs had been proposed before but failed to gain political support from existing stakeholders in the City and the Valley. I think it's important to remember that Sonoma Valley's split between City and Springs reflects actual political power, which is correlated with economic clout.

Reform can only succeed if policy is backed up by organization. In considering this, I reflected on the work of Takashi Negishi, whose social welfare weights have been (controversially) applied in a series of contexts. Integrated assessment modeling ("IAM") would probably suggest that there first needs to be economic and political equality before action becomes possible. There are efforts to do precisely that, but in addressing the (sometimes quite awful) facts on the ground, the lack of alignment between elites in the City and in the Valley is probably the most significant hurdle to reform.

McCarthy's Struggle to Unite Republicans.

"Magnolias bloom on the Capitol Grounds."

© 2020 sdkb. 

CC BY-SA 4.0.

via Wikimedia Commons.

The New York Times' Annie Karni writes this morning about Kevin McCarthy, who became the Speaker of the House in January, and has since faced his first significant test: lifting the debt ceiling in exchange for spending cuts and policy changes. With a slim Republican majority, the proposal's passage is far from guaranteed. Democrats, led by Senator Chuck Schumer and President Biden, have criticized the proposal as recklessly austere and fiscally misguided, arguing that Republicans are precipitating a debt crisis by tying unreasonable conditions to any vote to lift the debt ceiling.

As McCarthy struggles to garner the votes needed to push through the proposal, critics point out that the Republican Party has been crippled by misinformation, deception, and conspiracy theories. This has caused polarization within the party, a lack of accountability for individual Republican congressmen, and undermined trust in the political system itself and the Republican Party.

This high-stakes political battle highlights the divisions within the Republican Party and raises questions about McCarthy's leadership abilities. The party recognizes that it must address the controversial debt ceiling proposal, as the statutory borrowing limit is expected to be reached this summer. This all worsens a serious internal conflict that continues to exacerbate the fractures within the party, making it more difficult for them to present a united front on almost any critical policy issue.

As the situation continues to unfold, it remains to be seen whether McCarthy can navigate the challenging period in his tenure as Speaker of the House. However, it is clear that the Republican Party must address the root causes of its division and dysfunction in order to move forward effectively.

AI Transforming Self-Perception.

Sigmund Freud, c. 1921.
By Max Halberstadt.
Public Domain.
via Wikimedia Commons.

The Economist's essay this week discusses the rapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs) like GPT-4. The rise of LLMs has sparked an entrepreneurial explosion, altering how people use computers and creating new business models. However, this development also presents risks, such as spreading disinformation and creating deep fakes.

The essay draws comparisons between LLMs and pivotal moments in history, such as the introduction of the web browser, the printing press, and psychoanalysis, each of which significantly altered how people access knowledge and perceive themselves. As LLMs evolve, they could fundamentally shift the way we engage with information and each other. Some researchers even envision AI entities developing unique personalities, becoming externalized versions of users' inner voices or emulating the personalities of deceased individuals.

The true nature of AI models remains a contentious issue among researchers. Some argue that these models have no real understanding and merely parrot patterns from training data ("pseudocognition"), while others believe the models possess abilities that cannot be distinguished from genuine understanding. This debate echoes Freud's concept of the uncanny, and may influence how people perceive themselves, potentially reinforcing the idea that humans are not masters of their own existence.

There are further drawbacks to the rise of LLMs. They are capable of generating plausible but false information, a phenomenon known as "hallucination" or "confabulation," raising concerns about the potential for spreading disinformation, deep fakes, and fabricated content. This challenges the integrity of public debate and highlights the need to address the negative implications of AI-generated content while leveraging its potential benefits.

To address the implications of LLMs, the article emphasizes the importance of considering AI ethics, including unconscious biases in training, the responsibilities of AI creators, and the regulation of AI upbringing. It calls for a thorough examination of human desires and motivations in relation to LLM development and the potential societal impact. As AI continues to evolve, society must prepare for both the positive and negative consequences.

The Tucker Carlson Saga: A Shocking Departure and a Controversial Career.

Tucker Carlson, 2022.

© 2022 Gage Skidmore

CC BY-SA 2.0

via Wikimedia Commons.

In a surprising move, Fox News has parted ways with Tucker Carlson, its most popular prime time host, resulting in a major shift in the cable news landscape and sending shockwaves through the conservative movement. This announcement comes less than a week after the network agreed to pay $787.5 million in a defamation lawsuit, where Carlson's show played a significant role in spreading misinformation following the 2020 election.

The New York Times has previously reported on Tucker Carlson's multifaceted career, beginning with a challenging early life marked by his mother's abandonment of the family. As a journalist and television personality, he initially held more libertarian views, being critical of anti-immigration groups. However, his perspectives changed over time, particularly after the September 11th attacks, as he adopted increasingly anti-immigration and anti-diversity stances.

Carlson's rise as a key figure in the populist movement around Donald Trump was facilitated by his adoption of white nationalist rhetoric. This development coincided with Fox News' shift in programming strategy to cater to its core audience of older white conservatives, amplifying white fear and resentment.

The conservative commentator's career also included the founding of The Daily Caller, a right-leaning digital tabloid. While the publication achieved success, it attracted controversy due to connections between some writers and white nationalist groups. Despite early setbacks in his television career, Carlson's support for Donald Trump and controversial views eventually led to his own Fox News show.

With Tucker Carlson's departure from Fox News, the future of the cable news landscape remains uncertain. As an influential figure in both television and politics, his impact on the conservative movement will undoubtedly continue to be felt for years to come.

Questions from the Press, Friday, April 21, 2023.

Siena Kelly.

Per past practice, questions from the Sonoma Index-Tribune I received about last night's Sonoma Valley Unified meeting, and the answers, are below. The questions concerned the school resource officer (SRO), Dunbar Elementary, school consolidation and configuration, and the naming of Midgley Field. The picture is of my daughter Siena, who was recently named the MVP of the JV soccer team at Sonoma Valley High, (well done Siena!). 

---

1. What was your impression of the discussion about possibly bringing back a school resource officer? Are any additional steps planned?

The School Resource Officer (SRO) program began as a partnership between the Sonoma County Sheriff's Office and the Sonoma Valley Unified School District (SVUSD) in 2004. From 2013 to 2020, the City of Sonoma joined the collaboration, forming a financial partnership among the Sheriff's Office, SVUSD, and the City. With an approximate cost of $240,000, the expense was shared by the three agencies. The SRO, a Sheriff's Office employee, served SVUSD with an office at Sonoma Valley High School and devoted their full time to various campuses within the School District.

In 2020, the City's budget saw significant reductions in the Police Services contract, including the elimination of three positions. Although the City's share of SRO program costs was included in the 2020 budget, the program was put on hold at the beginning of the fiscal year due to uncertainties caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, organizational budget impacts, and the shift to virtual learning. Despite SVUSD approving a contract to continue the SRO program into 2021, it was discontinued when the Sonoma City Council voted against the proposal on December 14, 2020. At that time, a request was made by SVUSD to maintain the funding, if not for an SRO, then for mental health services. The City cut it anyway.

Now, the City of Sonoma has included school services in its contract with the Sheriff's Department for 2022-23 using one-time funding. However, the City faces the same funding challenges as it did in 2020. The City of Sonoma's budget continues to be under pressure and relies on one-time funds for recurring expenses. The question remains: where is the stable funding mechanism that would allow the City to pursue an SRO contract, and why hasn't the City sought an agreement about that funding with SVUSD? If a future city council decides to reduce funding again, SVUSD would have to cover the shortfall, potentially facing long-term expenses to maintain the program.

In the context of School Resource Officers (SROs), it is helpful to understand the current presence of SROs in various high schools in the region. There is unconfirmed information about a temporary SRO at Montgomery High School, while Petaluma High, Casa Grande High, and the rest of the Santa Rosa High Schools are reported not to have SROs. It appears that Analy High School's SRO position may have lapsed. The Windsor Police Department states that they provide SRO services at Windsor High; however, it remains uncertain whether the high school has a dedicated SRO. Rohnert Park employs SRO Debbie Lamaison, who is believed to be on campus at Rancho Cotate. There is no available information about an SRO at Healdsburg High, but a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) exists between Cloverdale and their high school concerning the provision of an SRO.

It is important for elected officials to address these concerns and offer more information on the current status of SROs in the area. It appears that in many of these cases, cities may bear much of the expense for SROs. If the SRO contract from 2020 had been adopted by the City Council and the SRO program continued through today, the situation would be different. However, the fundamental funding questions remain unresolved, and consequently, no action can be taken at this time. My notes reflect that the direction to staff was to discuss funding with the incoming city manager, continue outreach and assessment with students and staff regarding the provision of mental health services, and otherwise seek to continue to collaborate with the Sheriff’s Department during that work.

2. What are your thoughts regarding the discussion and decision (if one was made) on regular agenda item No. 2, to suspend student enrollment at Dunbar Elementary School beginning in the 2023-24 school year?

The Dunbar students will, by and large, attend El Verano Elementary. That is the school located in the trustee area I serve. I know that the El Verano community will welcome the Dunbar students with open arms. El Verano is our healthiest, most community-oriented school, and with the outstanding new facilities at that location, the Dunbar students will be well served.

The relocation of those students from Dunbar, as difficult as it will be, allows the community to move forward. I strongly doubt the trustees will as a consequence be willing to disturb the new equilibrium that will be established at El Verano. We will not make these students, teachers, and staff move again.

For all practical purposes, the consequence of this decision is that El Verano will be off-limits to further changes. I think that is the right outcome. El Verano is our one walkable community school for our working-class families. Its unique combination of community services and social support is probably the future of our District. I hear from my constituents around El Verano that that is what they want. I am glad that looks like it will be the future they will receive.

Cojoined with that news was the letter from Woodland Star Charter School's board that they are interested in utilizing the Dunbar campus as soon as this August. This will result in an additional approximate savings for the District of $500,000. It further frees up capacity at Altimira Middle School, where Woodland Star had previously been located. Altimira Middle School is our one site that is large enough, as is, with the Woodland Star buildings, to serve all of our 6th, 7th, and 8th graders as a middle school. As a practical matter, the cooperative and collaborative approach of the Woodland Star community is helping the District be in a position to achieve a 3-1-1+1 configuration (three elementary, one middle, one high school, and one continuation high school) in the near future.

3. What are your thoughts regarding the discussion and decision (if one was made) on regular agenda item No. 3, to consider approval of the school configuration and consolidation plan?

The presentation was far different from the materials included in the packet. This was largely due to updated guidance from the California Attorney General to school districts on laws governing school closures and best practices for implementation. This guidance, issued on April 11, 2023, was and is consistent with our current plans outlined in the school reconfiguration presentation. However, and importantly, the guidance highlights steps to address racial equity, which we will ensure is integrated into our school configuration and consolidation process. I am very supportive of implementing the guidelines from the Attorney General with fidelity, as our District has in the past made a series of decisions that impact resources for schools primarily serving students of color. Sonoma Valley Unified must ensure equal educational opportunities for all students, even when resources come from external organizations like PTOs.

Based on the new information, the superintendent amended her recommendation during the meeting to establish a School Consolidation and Configuration ("SCC") Committee. This committee will recommend campuses for consolidation, develop a plan, and prioritize middle school consolidation before elementary school planning. The board agreed that the SCC committee will be charged with reviewing a 3-1-1 proposal, and the composition will include a parent of a special needs student, and a native Spanish speaker. I had wanted specific deadlines for the SCC Committee to present its work, specifically November of 2023 for the middle schools, and April of 2024 for the elementary schools, but the board, after discussion, chose to keep that flexible rather than set specific dates for the delivery of those reports. The committee will collaborate with the staff to create a plan that incorporates equity analyses, addressing past and current district decisions that impact resources for schools primarily serving students of color, and again ensuring equal educational opportunities for all students.

The District aims to link consolidation planning to the "Portrait of a Graduate" work and strategic planning. Ideally, this will establish baseline expectations for elementary, middle, and high school programming as the consolidation process proceeds. 

4. What was your impression of the discussion regarding the naming of the Sonoma Valley High School field, and the decision (if any) that was reached?

The Board decided to name the Sonoma Valley High School Athletic Field the Robert "Bob" Dale Midgley Jr. Field, to be known as "Midgley Field." Bob Midgley taught at Sonoma Valley High for 25 years before passing away on Saturday, Jan. 9, 2021. Bob passed just weeks after doctors discovered cancer, which had already spread throughout his body. Coach Midgley had attended Prestwood Elementary, Altimira Middle School and was a member of the class of 1984 at Sonoma Valley High School, before attending SRJC (where he played football) and Chico State. He earned his teaching credential at Sonoma State, where he played for the Seawolves (then Cossacks) football team as well. Bob had been a P.E. teacher at Altimira and Sonoma Valley High, as well as the head football coach and athletic director.

There were a number of meritorious individuals who were also suggested to have the field named after them. However, the loss of Coach Midgley so suddenly reminded me of how many families have been touched by cancer in our Valley. For so many years, Relay for Life has taken place at our high school track, and I closely associate (and I think many in our community do as well) the field and track at the high school with our community's efforts to grapple with the terrible impacts of that deadly disease. Naming the field after a coach we lost too soon to cancer somehow seems fitting, and recognizes that we will continue to all mourn the loss of our loved ones taken from us before their time.

Fox News' Settlement and Future Defamation Suits.

Justice William J. Brennan, 1972. 

(Author of opinion in New York Times v. Sullivan.)

Library of Congress, Public Domain.

via Wikimedia Commons. 

The Economist today reports on the recently settled defamation lawsuit between Fox News and Dominion Voting Systems for $787.5m over Fox's coverage of the 2020 US election. Dominion accused the network of knowingly spreading lies about its voting machines, resulting in Joe Biden's victory. The lawsuit revealed the extent to which Fox's coverage is shaped by a desire to tell its audience what it wants to hear and by its competition. The case also shed light on the network's tumultuous relationship with former President Donald Trump.

Fox's audience declined after the 2020 election, as Trump urged his supporters to switch to other networks. The network then sought to appease Trump's supporters, giving credibility to false claims made by his lawyers. Fox tried to shift its audience's focus to Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, but viewers ultimately did not follow this lead. The network continued to defend Trump during various legal troubles, as its influence on viewers appeared limited.

Despite the significant financial settlement, the lawsuit's impact on Fox News is, in the opinion of the Economist, negligible. The network can afford the payout, which is about a quarter of its estimated revenue last year, and it will not have to air retractions or corrections. As the lawsuit did not receive extensive coverage on Fox, viewers who learned about it elsewhere were likely to take the network's side. Another voting technology company, Smartmatic, is suing Fox for $2.7bn over its 2020 election coverage, which may draw more attention to the problem.

I think the article misses an important potential consequence of this case. The article highlights the network's influence on the American right, but fails to address the broader implications for libel law jurisprudence. Despite Fox News' potentially defensible behavior under  New York Times v. Sullivan, which protects news organizations from defamation suits unless they knowingly published false information or exhibited "reckless disregard" for the truth, the article does not discuss how the case could affect future defamation suits.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have questioned the basis of New York Times v. Sullivan, and the Fox News case may impact the Supreme Court's willingness to maintain such a powerful shield for the press. The network's repeated dissemination of misinformation, deception, and conspiracy theories could prompt the Court to reevaluate the limits of defamation protections for news organizations.

Overall, the article provides a detailed account of the Dominion lawsuit, Fox News' influence on conservative politics, and the network's relationship with former President Donald Trump. However, it would have been valuable for the piece to discuss the potential consequences of the case for future libel law jurisprudence and the role of the Supreme Court in shaping these outcomes.

Fox News' $787.5M Settlement with Dominion: A Wake-Up Call for Media Accountability and the Future of Democracy.

"Dominion Voting Systems v. Fox News."

© 2008 Xrmap.

Public Domain.

via Wikimedia Commons.

Jim Rutenberg and Katie Robertson of the New York report today that Fox News has reached a $787.5 million settlement with Dominion Voting Systems, avoiding a lengthy trial that would have seen its top executives and personalities face intense questioning over their role in spreading false claims about the 2020 election. The settlement, one of the largest defamation settlements in history, includes a rare admission by Fox News acknowledging that certain false claims about Dominion were aired on their network. However, the agreement did not require Fox to apologize for any wrongdoing in its programming, a point Dominion had been pushing for.

The settlement follows several pretrial findings by the presiding judge, Eric M. Davis, which cast Fox's programming in a negative light, significantly limiting its ability to argue that it was acting as a news network pursuing newsmaker claims. Dominion had collected substantial internal documentation from Fox, showing that many within the company knew the conspiracy theory about Dominion's election involvement was baseless. The settlement raises the question of whether Fox News will change its approach to handling defamatory conspiracy content in the future.

When I began writing online (blogging?) in 2012, the first significant post I made concerned the sale of the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, The North Bay Business Journal, and the Petaluma Argus-Courier. While the sales price at the time was not disclosed, the value of the Press Democrat had dropped and related enterprises had, on the evidence, declined by over 90% since the purchase of the papers by the New York Times in 1985. That was consistent with the decline of the newspaper industry overall in recent times. I speculated then about the consequences of the collapse of the economics supporting newspapers and the possible impacts of the same. 

The experience since 2012 in America, and the decline of its papers, has been bigger news than I might have imagined. The end of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 allowed conservative voices like Rush Limbaugh to dominate talk radio, as broadcasters no longer needed to present balanced viewpoints. The culture that developed in that context has since spread into newspapers and cable TV news. This change contributed to the polarization of political discourse in the United States and helped shape the nation's political landscape. 

Rather than merely be conservative, the Dominion case suggests that, over time, the lack of balance has led to Richard Hofstadter's "Paranoid Style" of American politics rising to the fore. A political culture founded on falsehoods, deceit, or misinformation can undermine trust in democratic institutions, erode the credibility of political leaders, and ultimately sap the stability and effectiveness of the political system as a whole. This has severe consequences for the functioning of a democratic society, leading to increased polarization, ineffective decision-making, and weakened accountability.

The decline in the economics supporting newspapers, the end of the Fairness Doctrine, and the subsequent rise of polarizing voices have significantly impacted the American political landscape. The Fox News settlement with Dominion Voting Systems highlights how unbalanced reporting and conspiracy theories have permeated mainstream media, eroding trust in democratic institutions and increasing political polarization. As we move forward, it is essential to address the challenges posed by this shifting media environment and work towards fostering a political culture that values accuracy, integrity, and balanced perspectives, to ensure the continued stability and effectiveness of our democratic system.