Compliment Fishing, Ageism, Bloody Revolution, and School Levies. Just Another Day at CCN.

Cowlitz County News (CCN) has apparently appointed itself the official guardian of Longview's children, the voice of outraged parents, and the last line of defense against everything allegedly wrong with the school system. That's quite a workload for a Facebook page. Somebody should buy them a cape.

The screenshots from CCN's own comment threads, however, tell a rather entertaining, yet embarassing, story. In one post, CCN managed to fish for compliments, exhibit ageist behavior toward older people, and respond to a commenter with what came across as an attempt to shut down an argument. Three accomplishments in one sitting! Martha Stewart has her entertaining tips, but CCN has apparently perfected the art of making a political discussion all about itself.

Let's take a look at this little masterclass in community engagement, shall we?

Someone praised CCN's moderators, and the page responded, “Thank you. Any particular thing we did?”

Translation: Thank you for the compliment. Please provide supporting documentation so we can enjoy it even more.

Apparently, a simple compliment isn't enough. CCN needs the audience to explain exactly why it is so wonderful. Nothing says humble community service quite like prompting your fans to give you your own glowing performance review in public.

Perhaps it was innocent engagement. It appears that it was a little fishing expedition for validation. Either way, the screenshot gives us a peek at a page that seems perfectly comfortable encouraging public praise when the praise is coming its way.

Next up, the ageism. CCN made dismissive remarks about older people being out of touch, including telling one commenter, “but you CAN be out of touch.”

Apparently, age is fair game when CCN is deciding who gets to have an opinion. The irony of a page claiming to care about the future of children, while casually dismissing people based on age, is almost too rich to require a side dish.

People can be out of touch at 25, 45, 65, or 95. Being confidently wrong is an equal-opportunity hobby. Nobody gets a lifetime exemption from bad opinions, including the people running the Cowlitz County News page.

The same screenshot shows CCN telling the commenter, “We highly recommend not. Today is not the day for it,” after suggesting that the commenter intended to argue.

Well, we didn't realize the public comment sections had visiting hours. 

That may not be a literal threat, but it certainly reads as an attempt to discourage someone from challenging the page and asking questions. Apparently, discussion is encouraged provided everyone remembers that it is CCN who owns the microphone. Supportive comments are welcome, compliments are appreciated and fished for, and disagreement may require an appointment with management on the 12th of Never.

So, here we have fishing for compliments, ageist jabs, and an intimidating response to potential disagreement, all in one post. It's impressive in a Charles Manson actually got people to do what??? type of way, I guess. It's not exactly the warm and fuzzy community leadership seminar CCN might imagine it's conducting.

A Brief Intermission: What the Judge Actually Ruled

Before the comment section declares itself the Supreme Court of Cowlitz County, let's review what Judge Stephen Warning actually decided in the Longview School Board recall case.

Here's the rundown.

Jennifer Leach's confidential communications charge survived. The judge determined that a charge concerning her handling of confidential district communications through email accounts outside the district's system was legally and factually sufficient to proceed. The communications involved sensitive student information and attorney-client communications. That does not mean the allegations have been proven, and it does not remove Leach from office.

In legal terms, the charge gets to move forward. In Facebook terms, apparently, some people want to skip straight to the sentencing, preferably accompanied by a dramatic soundtrack.

The emergency meeting charge was dismissed. The judge concluded that the required intent for a recall charge had not been established. That does not mean every aspect of the meeting was automatically declared compliant with every applicable requirement.

The superintendent's contract extension charge was dismissed. The judge concluded that the board members acted in good faith in extending the superintendent's contract.

The public comment charge against Don Wiitala was dismissed. The judge emphasized the board's responsibility to maintain order during meetings. People can still disagree about how the exchange unfolded, but the recall charge did not survive.

The mandatory reporting charge against Susan Donahue was dismissed. The judge distinguished her role as a certificated substitute teacher from her role as a school board member and concluded that the mandatory-reporting obligation did not apply to her board conduct under the circumstances presented. That ruling did not resolve every broader question about oversight and accountability.

Wiitala's separate contract-signing charge was also dismissed.

There you have it. All but one of the recall charges against Jennifer Leach, Don Wiitala, and Susan Donahue were dismissed. The remaining charge against Leach is allowed to proceed.

That is not the same as saying the judge proved every board member innocent of every conceivable concern. It is also not the same as saying the surviving allegation has been proven true.

I know. I know. Nuance is terribly inconvenient when you're trying to operate a political outrage machine. It keeps getting in the way of a perfectly good Facebook pile-on.

People can criticize the ruling, demand transparency, and continue investigating legitimate concerns. What they should not do is confuse allegations with findings or treat speculation about the judge as evidence of a conspiracy.

A court ruling is not a conspiracy theory starter kit. At least, it shouldn't be.

Judge Warning: Apparently, Everyone's a Legal Expert Now

The judge's ruling also inspired speculation about his personal relationships, alleged connections, and supposed friendships with people involved in local politics.

One commenter suggested there was a “good ole boy” connection. Another suggested that Judge Warning had worked with people involved in the dispute for decades. Others questioned his impartiality or speculated about relationships behind the scenes.

Here's the thing: questioning a judge's impartiality is legitimate when there is actual evidence of a conflict of interest. Simply disliking a ruling does not establish one.

Scott Varner, in the screenshot, argues that he has more experience with judges and their friendships than the other commenter. He insists his accusations aren't coming from a criminal standpoint, but that he knows what he knows.

Well, that's reassuring. We can all put away the court records, forget about evidence, and simply accept that somebody on Facebook knows a guy who knows a guy who knows how these things work.

Apparently, the legal standard is now, “Trust me, I've been around.”

The screenshots do not establish that Judge Warning had a conflict of interest or that his decision was improperly influenced. They show people arguing about whether such connections exist.

There's a difference between raising a legitimate question and presenting speculation as established fact. One deserves examination. The other is how conspiracy theories acquire their own zip codes.

The back-and-forth between Scott Varner and Tammy Jones makes the point even more clearly. Varner suggests that connections and friendships may be involved. Jones challenges him to provide factual evidence rather than making insinuations.

That is a reasonable distinction to make. If someone has evidence of a conflict, present it. If the argument is simply that the judge must be biased because the ruling didn't go the way someone wanted, that is not evidence.

A judge is not automatically corrupt because someone on Facebook is unhappy with the outcome. Otherwise, our entire judicial system would collapse every time somebody lost a case and logged on to complain.

Cell Phones: Apparently, We've Found the Entire Problem With Education

One commenter offered an extensive explanation of what's wrong with public education, including the claim that cell phones and other electronic devices are part of the problem.

Well, there it is. Pack up the education experts. Cancel the budget meetings. Send the curriculum committees home. We have solved public education, and the answer was sitting in a teenager's pocket the entire time.

Never mind academic performance, staffing, classroom management, funding, curriculum, student welfare, or the responsibilities of school administrators. Apparently, the road to educational excellence begins with confiscating smartphones and ends with restoring the educational glory days.

To be fair, cell phones can absolutely distract students, and schools have legitimate reasons to establish reasonable policies governing their use. The issue is pretending that one problem explains everything wrong with an entire education system.

That's like blaming all of Washington's traffic problems on one guy who forgot to use his turn signal. Annoying? Absolutely. The explanation for everything? Not remotely.

The manifesto continues with calls for stricter discipline, changes to curriculum, more trade skills, consequences for teachers and administrators, and a broader overhaul of the education system.

Some of those ideas are legitimate subjects for public discussion. Trade education deserves consideration. Classroom discipline matters. Schools should evaluate whether their policies are working.

The problem is that the comment reads less like a focused discussion of the recall and more like somebody has been waiting decades for a microphone and finally found one in the Facebook comments.

Apparently, we are going to fix everything from student behavior to state education policy in one sitting. All we need is a few more paragraphs and perhaps a PowerPoint presentation.

A phone policy is a policy discussion. It is not a comprehensive education strategy, and it certainly doesn't tell us whether the recall allegations against school board members are justified.

And Now, a Bloody Revolution. Because Apparently This Is Normal.

Just when you think the conversation can't get any more theatrical, we get a reference to a “bloody revolution.”

We're discussing a local school board, not auditioning for a low-budget remake of the American Revolution, High School Edition.

There is a difference between demanding accountability, organizing voters, recalling elected officials, and invoking violent revolutionary rhetoric. The first three are ordinary parts of civic life. The last one adds a rather disturbing flavor to a discussion that is already running hot enough to fry an egg.

The screenshot does not establish whether Rob Toney intended a literal call for violence or was speaking hyperbolically. Context matters. Still, if your discussion about improving local schools has wandered into bloody revolution territory, perhaps it's time to put down the keyboard and remember that a school board meeting is not the Battle of Lexington.

A bloody revolution is not an education policy. It is not a budget proposal. It is certainly not a substitute for evidence. It could, however, be a cry for more comprehensive mental health care. 

Perhaps, we could start with a sensible school phone policy and work our way up from there. No guillotines required.

The Great Longview School Funding Standoff

Now we get to the part that really deserves scrutiny.

CCN introduced future school bonds and levies into the heated discussion surrounding the recall. Some of the resulting comments connected school funding decisions to the desire to remove particular board members.

Several commenters declared they would vote against school funding measures until certain board members were gone.

One commenter stated that they would not vote for a single levy while certain people remained on the board. Others made it clear that their opposition to funding was tied to their feelings about the board members.

Let's be precise: the screenshots do not show CCN explicitly instructing everyone to vote NO. We cannot establish the private motives behind the page's posts, either. Voters have every right to oppose bonds and levies, question spending, and demand accountability.

The problem is the reasoning expressed by commenters who openly connect school funding decisions to their desire to remove particular board members.

Apparently, the new strategy for improving public education is to make students and the school district part of the punishment until the adults we dislike get their marching orders.

Brilliant. Absolutely no potential consequences there.

If a funding proposal is wasteful, vote against it. If the district cannot justify its spending, demand answers. If board members have failed in their responsibilities, hold them accountable. Those are perfectly legitimate positions.

Voting against a school funding proposal because you believe it is financially irresponsible is one thing. Treating every bond or levy as a weapon against particular officials is another.

Students don't get to choose their school board members. They don't get to decide which adults win the political battle. They also don't get to opt out of the consequences when that battle affects their schools.

Which brings us back to the question CCN ought to consider: if the objective is genuinely to put children first, why introduce school funding into a heated political discussion in a way that leads some commenters to treat it as leverage against the board?

The page did not explicitly tell everyone to vote NO. The resulting conversation nevertheless raises a legitimate question about whether the politics are starting to overshadow the educational issues.

Cora's Comment Is an Argument for Better-Funded Schools, Not Starving Them of Resources

Now let's talk about Cora's comment, because it raises precisely the kind of concerns that should make people think carefully before treating school funding as a political weapon.

Cora raises questions about what students are experiencing, how adults are responding to serious concerns, and whether the district is adequately addressing problems involving student safety and school oversight.

Those are serious issues. They deserve answers, not dismissive replies, political point-scoring, or another round of Facebook finger-pointing.

Her comment also illustrates why we need to examine whether schools have the resources, staffing, training, and oversight necessary to address the problems people are describing.

Let's get this straight. If you believe schools aren't doing enough to protect students, the solution is to demand that the district do better, investigate where the money is going, and determine what resources are needed to address any failures. If a levy would fund necessary improvements, voting against it simply to punish board members could make the situation worse for the very children you're claiming to defend.

You don't fix a school system by potentially starving it of resources and then complaining that it isn't doing enough. That's like complaining that your car won't run, refusing to buy gas because you hate the mechanic, and then blaming the car for staying in the driveway.

Now, this doesn't mean every levy deserves an automatic YES. Taxpayers should absolutely examine proposals, question spending, and demand evidence that the money will be used effectively. More funding without accountability isn't a magic wand, either.

The point is that funding decisions should be based on what a proposal actually pays for, what needs it addresses, and whether it is likely to deliver meaningful results for students.

If the problems people are describing involve student safety, staffing, supervision, educational support, or other services that require resources, the answer is to determine what is needed and whether the funding proposal would actually help. The answer isn't to treat every levy as a hostage in a political dispute.

Cora's concerns should prompt a serious discussion about what the district needs to protect and educate its students. Instead, the broader conversation includes people announcing that they will vote NO until particular board members are gone.

That's not a coherent education policy. That's political retaliation dressed up as fiscal responsibility.

If the goal is genuinely to protect children, evaluate the funding, demand accountability, and make decisions based on what students need.

Cora's comment is a reason to investigate whether the district needs more resources and better oversight, not a justification for automatically withholding funding.

The children don't get to choose the board, approve the budget, or settle political grudges. They simply have to live with the consequences of the decisions adults make.

Maybe it's time the adults started acting like it.

The Other Comments Deserve a Look, Too

The comments also include personal accusations against Susan Donahue, including claims that she is racist and dishonest. Other commenters defend her character and dispute those claims.

These are allegations made by commenters, not established findings. The screenshot itself does not prove the accusations are true or false.

People are entitled to criticize elected officials. However, calling somebody a liar or a racist in a comment thread is not a substitute for evidence. If there are specific incidents that support an allegation, discuss those incidents and provide the facts.

Apparently, though, a school board recall is also an excellent opportunity to conduct a Facebook character trial. No subpoenas, no sworn testimony, no rules of evidence. Just a keyboard, a strong opinion, and an audience.

Another screenshot features a commenter alleging that Donahue harassed someone at work and at home for over a year.

Again, that is an allegation in the comment thread, not a fact established by the screenshot. The proper response to a serious allegation is to examine the evidence rather than automatically accept it because it fits someone's political narrative.

I mean, don't let proof get in the way of  a perfectly good character assination.

This screenshot raises a separate concern about a records request and the suggestion that it would be pushed to 2028.

Public records access and transparency are legitimate matters of public concern. If a request is being delayed, the details matter: what was requested, what response was given, and what legal basis was offered for the timeline.

A snarky comment about the date may make people laugh, but the actual records and the applicable disclosure requirements are what determine whether the delay is appropriate.

Then, there's the question of taxpayer money being used for legal representation.

One commenter expresses anger about the district spending taxpayer money on attorneys. The screenshot title raises the issue of whether the same concern was applied consistently when other local officials faced legal expenses.

That is a fair question to investigate. If public officials object to taxpayer-funded legal representation in one situation but defend it in another, the inconsistency deserves scrutiny.

The relevant details are whether the circumstances were comparable, what legal services were provided, and what obligations the public entities had. Political convenience should not determine whether taxpayers deserve an explanation.

I also believe it warrants asking if this person was equally chapped over Spencer Boudreau, Kalei LaFave, Erik Halvorson and Keith Young using his tax dollars to pay for their legal defense. 

Finally, Someone Remembers This Is About the Kids

One commenter raises questions about student safety, including allegations of sexual assault and concerns about whether the appropriate adults took action.

These are serious subjects. Allegations involving students deserve careful investigation, appropriate reporting, and accountability where failures are established. They should not be casually dismissed, nor should unverified claims be treated as proven facts.

Student safety is precisely the kind of issue that deserves attention beyond political slogans and Facebook arguments.

That makes it all the more frustrating when a discussion ostensibly about children becomes tangled up with personal attacks, speculation about judges, political grievances, and declarations about how people intend to vote on school funding.

The children are not a convenient accessory to the argument. Their safety, education, and well-being are the actual stakes.

The discussion about Donahue also illustrates how easily serious allegations and character defenses become competing political narratives. One commenter accuses her of racism and dishonesty, while another defends her based on years of personal experience.

Neither a hostile accusation nor a glowing character reference resolves a factual dispute. The underlying evidence does.

If the concern is student safety, keep the focus on what happened, what officials knew, what they were required to do, and whether those responsibilities were met.

That is considerably more useful than turning every person in the story into either a villain or a saint.

So What Exactly Is CCN Trying to Accomplish?

Maybe CCN genuinely believes it is fighting for better schools. The screenshots don't prove otherwise. It is entirely possible to care about children and still have a political point of view.

However, the combination of public back-patting, dismissive treatment of older people, discouragement of disagreement, sweeping pronouncements about education, revolutionary rhetoric, speculation about the judge, and talk of withholding school funding paints a picture that looks considerably more political than child-centered.

The page appears to be cultivating an identity in which its audience represents the brave defenders of parents and children, while opposing voices become obstacles to progress. That's a convenient story if you're trying to rally supporters. It is considerably less convincing when the conversation wanders away from specific evidence and toward political loyalty, personal jabs, and sweeping solutions that fit neatly on a Facebook meme.

If this is about the kids, where is the sustained discussion about educational outcomes, responsible spending, student safety, and what actually improves the school system?

Where is the distinction between holding officials accountable and punishing a district because you dislike who's in charge?

Where is the recognition that someone can disagree with CCN and still care deeply about children?

Apparently, caring about kids has become a competitive sport, complete with public praise, age-based insults, dramatic warnings, and the occasional suggestion that society needs a bloody revolution. Somebody get these people a trophy. Preferably one that doesn't come out of the school budget.

CCN is entitled to its opinions. Its audience is entitled to theirs. School board members are not above criticism, and public education absolutely deserves scrutiny.

What deserves scrutiny, too, is the way a page presents itself as a champion of children while its discussion veers into personal attacks, political grandstanding, and using school funding as a point of leverage.

The screenshots do not prove CCN's private motives. They do, however, give people reasonable grounds to question whether its approach is driven primarily by concern for students or by a political agenda that uses concern for students as its calling card.

You don't prove you're fighting for children by mentioning them in every other sentence. You prove it by considering what your actions and recommendations will actually mean for them.

Hold board members accountable. Demand transparency. Investigate legitimate concerns. Debate cell phone policies with actual reasoning. Evaluate bonds and levies on their merits. Run for office. Vote. Organize. Disagree.

All of that is considerably more useful than turning a school board dispute into a social media production where everybody gets a role, every disagreement becomes a personal affront, and the audience is expected to applaud the people holding the microphone.

Just don't wrap a political agenda in a for the children ribbon and expect everyone to mistake the packaging for proof of good intentions.

From the outside, this is starting to look less like an impartial campaign for better schools and more like a politically motivated effort in which children make excellent talking points and school funding makes a handy bargaining chip.

Maybe CCN's intentions are entirely noble. If so, a consistent focus on evidence, policy, and student outcomes would be a wonderful way to demonstrate that.

Until then, the questions aren't going away.

The ultimate test of whether you're fighting for children isn't how often you invoke them in a political argument. It's whether you're willing to put their interests ahead of your political victories.

Unfortunately, the children don't get to log off Facebook when the adults finish playing politics.