I have lived in Morgan Hill for nearly 40 years, and have participated in City Council meetings over the years as well. I became a campaign treasurer and manager for a number of local campaigns beginning with the election of Former Mayor Dennis Kennedy.
I have watched a number of sensitive city issues debated in Council Chambers and have been proud of the way the Council and Mayors worked through these difficult issues to come to a decision that was as fair and equitable as possible.
Unfortunately, we have had to deal with a councilperson that is not a team player, can be disruptive at meetings and appears to me to have a personal agenda. Yvonne Martinez Beltran is more interested in her own personal agenda than she is the city’s future.
She seeks attention at every event and has shown up at events uninvited and nearly knocked me to the ground trying to have her picture taken with a local congresswoman, after she took a name badge off the guest badge table to gain entry.
I have seen this behavior numerous times and was simply appalled by her actions at public or private events that she was not invited to attend nor did she have a ticket to enter.
Ask yourself what has she accomplished for the city? Is she a person that you would choose to represent Morgan Hill at important meetings or in a decision making process? I don’t think so.
I cringe when she speaks in public or at council meetings, and now she has caused attention to herself again with inaccurate accusations against our Mayor and her disruptive behavior.
I think Morgan Hill deserves MUCH better and I hope that you agree. A vote for her opponent, would settle her disruption once and for all! The City Council would not be dysfunctional if she was not a part of it; she is the dysfunction.
Swanee Edwards
Morgan Hill
Why do you publish such partisan smear campaigns as “Letters to the Editor”? Personal attacks like this don’t belong in our local paper no matter what “side” of the political spectrum you may be on. Shame on the Times for running this.
Don’t publish this kind of letter. It discredits our local news source.
When a newspaper’s editorial choices look like a political endorsement, we might have a problem. The Morgan Hill Times is entitled to publish letters expressing strong opinions about elected officials and candidates. That is part of a healthy democracy, but a newspaper also has a responsibility to apply its editorial standards fairly, particularly during a local election when residents rely on the press for information to make informed decisions.
That is why the publication of Swanee Edwards’ October 7 letter, “Morgan Hill deserves better on the city council,” raises legitimate questions about the Morgan Hill Times’ editorial judgment.
This is not simply a matter of allowing someone to criticize Councilmember Yvonne Martinez Beltran. It is about the larger context: letters concerning her opponent in the upcoming City Council race have not been published, and comments discussing the opposing candidate have not been permitted on the newspaper’s website.
When a newspaper publishes a letter that goes well beyond criticism of an incumbent and explicitly urges readers to vote for her opponent, while declining to provide comparable opportunities for discussion of that opponent, the result is an unmistakable imbalance.
The letter does not merely express dissatisfaction with a councilmember’s performance. It makes personal allegations, characterizes her as the source of dysfunction on the City Council, and concludes with a direct appeal for voters to elect her opponent. That is campaign advocacy, regardless of whether it appears under the heading of a letter to the editor rather than a formal editorial endorsement.
The newspaper may insist that it has not endorsed a candidate, but editorial decisions communicate messages, too. What gets published, what gets rejected, and which readers are permitted to participate in online discussions all influence the political conversation in our community.
An appearance of favoritism can undermine public trust just as surely as an explicit endorsement. If the Morgan Hill Times welcomes criticism of one candidate, residents have every reason to ask why comparable scrutiny of the opposing candidate is apparently unwelcome. Are the same standards being applied to both sides? Are the publication’s criteria transparent? Are those criteria being applied consistently throughout this election? These are fair questions, not accusations of wrongdoing. The newspaper’s publisher and editor should be willing to answer them.
Local elections deserve better than a public conversation in which one candidate’s critics receive a platform while the other candidate’s supporters or critics are denied a comparable opportunity to be heard. Our community is small enough that local relationships matter and local journalism has an especially important role in ensuring that those relationships do not determine whose voices count.
The Morgan Hill Times does not have to agree with every letter submitted. It does, however, have a responsibility to exercise its editorial discretion in a manner that is fair, transparent, and consistent.
A newspaper need not formally endorse a candidate to create the appearance that it has chosen a side. Sometimes, the endorsement is in the imbalance itself. Morgan Hill residents deserve a newspaper that facilitates informed civic participation, not one whose publication and moderation decisions leave reasonable questions about political favoritism unanswered.