Shame on the Contra Costa Times, say Walnut Creek police officers

The Mayor of Claycord says it better than I can today:

"The Walnut Creek Police Association (WCPA) hasn't been shy when it comes to speaking out about Walnut Creek City Council Candidate Cindy Silva, and now, they're blasting the Contra Costa Times for what they say is "unqualified bias and contempt of the facts."

Here is a letter the WCPA sent to the Times. The association sent it along to  other media organizations. The association also sent a link to its own website, the Future of Public Safety In Walnut Creek, in which they print all the letters that they say the Times hasn't printed.  

Just so you know, as editor of Walnut Creek Patch, I have extended invitations to all the candidates to submit commentary, or to encourage their supporters to submit commentary. Some of those will be published over the coming days and weeks. 

On Thursday, the Walnut Creek Journal printed a letter from former Mayor Gwen Regalia praising Silva and her qualifications and the current City Council.

To be fair to the Times, the Walnut Creek Journal Thursday printed a letter titled "Contra Costa Times Misses Mark with Silva Endorsement." 

The writer, Michael Frederick, a 35-year resident of Walnut Creek says: "While the City Council should be commended for addressing employee pensions, the Times found it necessary to carve this 'one key issue' out. Apparently, endorsing Cindy Silva is a hard proposition, as the Times' endorsement largely avoids mentioning Silva, droning on and on and on over police pensions, as if they were running for something."

No kidding. It was one of the more bizarre endorsements I've ever read. I say this as someone who has written her share of bizarre commentaries. 

As someone who lives just outside the city limits, I'm not allowed to vote in this election. As the editor of Walnut Creek Patch, I also have chosen not to take a position. Leave it to the voters to decide.

That said, I can understand the annoyance this endorsement has caused, and not just because of the candidates the Times chose to endorse or not endorse, or because of the "alleged bias and contempt for facts" the WCPA alleges.

I found the tone of the editorial to be condescending to Walnut Creek residents, of which I am one. It presumed to know what we who live here want in our city and believe to be important. I'm sure a lot of us agree that pension reform is very important, but there are other concerns as well, and all the candidates have mentioned them at various times in public forums. 

But enough of what I think.  Here is the letter from the WCPA to the Times:

"This city spends $340 per resident per year on police services, as compared to $242 in Antioch. In addition to the regular budget, from 2006 to 2012, nearly $1 million has been spent on technology, the department's bomb team a prisoner transport van and a police dog program."
--Gwen Regalia, October 6

We are speechless you have once again shown such unqualified bias and contempt of the facts. By allowing Gwen Regalia to print an opinion piece containing the statement above you have shown you are willing to throw Journalistic integrity out the window to get your favored candidate elected. We sent you the attached letter detailing that both the Police Association and the City of Walnut Creek have clearly stated the per-capita police funding statistics in the Cindy Silva mailer are incorrect. You ignored the story. It was however covered online by CLAYCORD and Walnut Creek PATCH. Times reporters Elizabeth Nardi, Lisa Vorderbueggen and Tom Barnidge were also provided with this information. Sometime later Daniel Borenstein used the same flawed figure as the basis to ignore Police Association concerns about funding and staffing levels in his editorial. Borenstein is either the most incompetent and lazy fact checker in print journalism history or he is willingly printing distortions. Finally, today you allowed Gwen Regalia's editorial citing the same now clearly inaccurate and misleading figures.

We will gladly eat our words when you provide an objective editorial fact checking the distortions you have now printed time and again.

Meanwhile, letters to the editor supporting our cause or opposing Cindy Silva seem to get misplaced or simply ignored. We have a list of them on our website.

Shame on you and your once fine newspaper.