By Mike Wood

Staff writer

 

Tuesday, November 26 (9:00 a.m.): Discussing the hot-button topic of whether political columns should resume in the Rossmoor News, Policy Committee members made one point clear at their Nov. 13 meeting: Their expressed preference is to not resume publishing that type of opinion, even with a modified approach.

A draft of changes to Policy 601.2 that governs the newspaper’s editorial policy was presented by GRF Director of Communications Ann Peterson at the meeting, which drew about two dozen residents to Creekside’s Fairway Room. It would have created a Rossmoor Views weekly column pertaining to Rossmoor issues or life. But that ultimately proved a no-go for the committee, which nixed that idea without taking a vote.

“My opinion is that we need to keep the politics out of the Rossmoor News, and I know that is not a popular opinion,” Policy Committee Chair Leanne Hamaji said. “But that’s how I feel.”

Efforts by staff to carve out a different column niche still showed potential for future predicaments.

“I think we were trying to be sensitive to the political expression that was being asked for,” said committee member Cheryl Hines, “without thinking of some of the very good points that were being brought up by some of the residents” who gave feedback to Peterson.

That feedback included how much the columns had to focus on Rossmoor vs. politics, the possible domination of one political viewpoint and the likelihood of increased staff time needed for editing.

Hamaji, in her role as GRF Board president, put a moratorium on political columns in August, following some politically charged incidents in Rossmoor. It’s the third time in six years the paper’s political columns have been put on hiatus.

Trying to fill a gap could present some of the same problems that have caused a strain on the newspaper’s editors, particularly with time spent fact-checking opinion columns, committee members said.

“With the Rossmoor Views column, you probably would still face fact-checking,” Hamaji said. “It would probably still have a cumbersome appeal process. You would have to argue with the person whether the topic was related to Rossmoor.”

Proponents of bringing back political columns remain steadfast, including members of Democrats of Rossmoor, two of whom spoke during Residents’ Forum.

That no other senior community newspaper in the nation was found to publish political columns – research that Peterson presented at Policy’s October meeting – is irrelevant, said Katha Hartley, among the writers of the Progressive View column that functioned under Democrats of Rossmoor.

“Most Rossmoorians think of our community as unique, diverse, and resistant to being a cookie cutter, compliant and obedient community; we really do not care what other communities do,” Hartley said. “Social Security impacts all of us, doesn’t it? Medicare impacts all of us, doesn’t it? Health insurance impacts all of us, doesn’t it? And so, I recommend that those political columns be restored.”

The Policy Committee meets next on Monday, Dec.

9, in the Board Room at Gateway. At that time, Peterson will present a revised draft of potential policy changes. Wording was added to the draft to specify that only candidates seeking public office or measures and propositions in an election (not within Rossmoor) would be allowed to advertise in the News.

Issue-centric political ads, which Peterson said in recent years have not generated much advertising revenue, would be off the table.

Also cast aside was a draft of changes to a standing policy on content on Rossmoor TV, which currently bans content on the topics of religion or “bipartisan politics.” Staff proposed changes that would have made Policy 602.0 less restrictive, allowing for programming on religious topics with more than one religious denomination’s viewpoint. But the question was posed during the meeting about what would happen if, for instance, the Church of Satan aimed to be part of a discussion.

Such scenarios presented a “slippery slope” to committee member James Lee, who said he’d prefer that the matter be put to rest and to stick with the policy as it had stood.

“We live in a world where religion is a very raw topic, now and in the past and probably in the future,” Hamaji said. “And I think we need to go back to the original statement that the channel does not accept programming on bipartisan politics and religion, and stick to that.”

She did later ask, for clarity’s sake, that the word “bipartisan” be struck from the next draft that Peterson will present at December’s meeting.

Also, aspects of the room reservations process that is being overhauled were detailed by Ann Mottola, GRF director of community services. She outlined three areas: GRF-approved organizations, guest usage and facilities use.

The intent of this comprehensive look has been to “clean up” past reservation processes that might not have been fair to some clubs, Mottola said.

“Because things have been in existence for a long time, different practices or processes or groups given different preferential treatment … we want to try to clean that up and make sure that going forward, there is a path,” she said.

Room reservations is a resource issue, Hamaji said, given that there’s a limited number of rooms and a limited number of hours, likening it to a puzzle that Mottola and staff are trying to put together. Refining policy will be a key component of changes that could take significant time to set.

“We’re going to work on this for months,” Hamaji stressed. “This is going to go for a long time. So, it’s little by little as we get through, make definitions, make policy, add it to existing policies, change it. It’s not going to happen overnight.”

Each policy that relates to GRF-approved organizations, guest usage and facilities use will be discussed at upcoming Policy Committee meetings.