Front Page  »  

SLO County Clerk Recorder error leads to Tribune correction

October 15, 2021

Supervisor Lynn Compton

By KAREN VELIE

The San Luis Obispo Tribune slammed SLO County Supervisor Lynn Compton this week in an article claiming she was illegally raising money for her campaign, before insinuating a speaker at one of her upcoming fundraising events is a climate change denier. The only issue, the slams were incorrect.

“The county’s online campaign records show Compton has not yet filed her Form 501 candidate intention statement,” according to the Tribune. “Candidates running for office are supposed to submit the Fair Political Practices Commission form prior to beginning their fundraiser efforts.”

While the Tribune was correct that SLO County Clerk Recorder staff had not posted a Form 501 for Compton on their website, which they had for her opponent Jimmy Paulding, it was just one of many errors that regularly occur in the Clerk Recorder’s Office.

Compton filed her Form 501 on June 10, which staff then stamped with former-clerk recorder Tommy Gong’s name. After Compton informed the Tribune of its error regarding her Form 501, the Tribune removed the incorrect reporting and posted a correction at the bottom of the online article.

Steven Hayward

Also in the article, the Tribune refers to Steven Hayward, who is scheduled to speak at an upcoming Compton fundraiser, as a climate change science critic. In 2007, while noting global warming was real, Hayward produced a documentary that pointed out alleged inaccuracies in Al Gore’s documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth.”

Hayward, who describes himself as a blogger, author and occasional academic, is a professor in the political science department at the University of California Berkeley and a regular contributor to Forbes.

In a 2014 Forbes article about “careerist, self-seeking, and mindless bureaucrats,” Hayward criticized former SLO County Supervisor Adam Hill for lashing out against those who questioned his motives. This was years before the FBI announced Hill was garnering bribes for his work as a supervisor.


Loading...
Related:


11 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Compton is running against two opponents, The Tib and Little Jimmy.


12

Seems like many of the progressive group politicians in SLO County can do whatever they want and the Tribune will either not report anything or downplay their transgressions. Adam Hill, Heidi Harmon, Bob Vessely to name the latest group. But if you are not a progressive, beware, the Tribune may very well fabricate a story. The Tribune editors may want to review their Journalism 101 textbook.


89

So Jimmy Paulding claims Lynn Compton is partisan for questioning issues at the clerk recorder’s office, which Jimmy claims runs perfectly. Then the same staff that he praises posts his documents correctly while not posting a supervisor’s documents who questioned the many errors made by the office.


It may be time for Jimmy, who is promoted by the SLO Progressives, to look up the meaning of partisan.


Remember, Jimmy’s campaign manager last time was Nick Andree, an employee of Helios Dayspring and former close friend of Adam Hill. Nick Andree and former SLO Mayor Heidi Harmon formed the SLO Progressives, which they use to support like-minded candidates.


Again, Jimmy, look up the meaning of the word “partisan.”


128

Climate Denier, sounds like the church labeling someone a heretic, because they don’t believe as someone in the church says they ought to believe. They use to hang heretics or burn them at the stake. All the hate spilled out against people who don’t have the correct belief systems today, seems much like the church that burned people at the stake for beliefs that weren’t in march step with the current group in power.


84

You are correct!


It reminds me of when they burned Giordano Bruno at the stake in the Campo de Fiori in 1600 for questioning the “dogma” and daring to advance Copernican ideas about the universe. His last words were alleged to be, “what a poor man it is who believes like the multitudes because of the multitudes.” One could say he truly was following the science at the time and because of that lost his life. How ironic given the times we live in.


Today, questioning the status quo (the accepted dogma) can cost your job, your reputation, and your friends. Yesterday’s Catholic Church is today’s mass media in cahoots with certain, far left political factions. Totalitarianism in some form lives on in the good old USA. Question anthropogenic climate change, theories about public health policies, economic theory, election fraud, whatever…and off to the gallows in a sense. What happened to the notion that diversification of ideas and points of view was a good thing? That the answer to speech that one might not like is more speech? Yet so many have been cancelled, shunned, it’s really not the America I grew up with. Maybe history does repeat itself? I’m hoping I’m wrong but maybe this is the beginning of the end for America, that beacon of light for the world for the last 200 plus years.


What will become of our Republic?


51

The problem with this analogy is that when the church was persecuting scientists, the broad majority of the people were illiterate and not able to decide for themselves. Today, we have copious evidence that climate change is real and that the burning of fossil fuels is the culprit. The science is settled and most educated people accept it. This Hayward guy is simply a contrarian who wants to make a name for himself in right-wing circles.


-40

The scientists the church persecuted were arguing against what was then settled science. The idea that Al Gore’s take on global warming is settled science is ludicrous. I believe scientists will find more and more out about the causes, which are likely more than one, and the best ways to fight it. To make this about conservative or liberal is moronic. This is about our planet and it is time to work together.


34

The belief the sun rotated around the earth was definitely not settled “science” since what the church was saying had zero basis in “science.”


It is not only Al Gore who believes that pumping tons of carbon into the atmosphere is problematic, but virtually every climate scientist on the planet believes the same thing. There is no debate across the rest of the world. It’s only in America where a small group of contrarians seem to believe the status quo is acceptable. This is the product of big oil’s control over our economy.


I totally agree we should be working together to put an end to the burning of fossil fuels. It absolutely should not be about liberal or conservative, but, unfortunately, conservatives have made it that way, and Mr. Hayward is a perfect example of someone who simply wants to stir up the pot. I guess he must get paid pretty well to spout his nonsense at right-wing campaign events.


-31

So you only agree to work together to end burning fossil fuel even though fires in California released more carbon in 2020 than fossil fuels. You are promoting a partisan talking point and not science. We need to look at multiple issues, including reducing fires, to end global warming.


14

If we find out that the mass of the earth is increasing due to the BS we are creating, wouldn’t our orbit around the sun get closer? Less fake news = less BS.


-6

Science is settled? I don’t believe you understand the scientific method. Yes there compelling evidence abounds but with the scientific method if you can shoot any holes in a theory then it is just that, a theory or hypothesis . Therefore the case is not settled.


So, why then did the Romans grow Piedmont grape varietals in Scotland almost 2k years ago? They don’t grow there now. It’s because global climate has changed over centuries without an industrial revolution. Why are there still so many qualified scientists (phd’s ) from prestigious institutions that question the notion that (not that the temp has increased in the last century and a half), but the notion that climate temperature rise is all or completely man made? Perhaps man is only partially responsible? Why did the “science” predict the next ice age in the early 1970’ s (as predicted on the cover of Time Magazine)? Why was Stanford professor Dr. Paul Erhlich so off in his prediction of a coming Malthusian crunch. He was wrong, way off, but lots of pop media promulgated his thesis from his book “population Bomb”


I am not a meteorologist or physicist but I understand the scientific method and still have questions. Is that OK with you Adam, having questions about stuff that is “accepted” as almost a religion?


Hence, a strong hypothesis yes, I’ll concede that, you are correct, but the case is NOT CLOSED. Follow science, not political science.


23