[two_third]
School districts from Fallbrook and Bonsall through El Cajon and the South Bay are asking voters for a total of $1.6 billion in bond money this November.
[one_half][box type=”shadow this-matters”]Voters throughout San Diego County are being asked to weigh in on bond measures impacting taxes and school infrastructure for decades.[/box]
”https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/289014077″[/one_half]
Take a look at any of the 10 bond measures on the ballot and you’ll see a familiar litany of needs: leaky roofs, deteriorating pipes and overwhelmed electrical systems. The new money is aimed at improving school safety, modernizing classrooms and, perhaps as a nod to the people footing the bill, revamping student drop-off areas to reduce traffic.
A few districts propose major construction: a new community college workforce training center in the East County, and a new high school in Bonsall.
All the measures promise strict protections, sometimes written in bond documents in all caps: No money for administrators’ salaries, regular audits of the bond program, an independent bond oversight committee and none of the money will be snatched away by Sacramento. Those taxpayer protections, it should be noted, are mandated by the California education code.
[anchor type=”target” name=”map”][/anchor]
Story continues after this graphic
What’s on your ballot?
Search the ballot measures by school district, click on each district for more information on the bond measure up for a vote.
[/two_third]
Individual district needs aside, there’s at least one good reason districts are asking voters for bond money now: It’s cheap.
“Interest rates are still really low,” said Dan McAllister, the San Diego County treasurer and tax collector. “So the cost of issuance is incredibly low.”
However, the low rates aren’t luring record numbers of districts to ask for money. There were more measures up for a vote in the previous two presidential election years, and they had bigger numbers. In 2008 and 2012 voters in San Diego Unified were asked to approve bonds for $2.1 billion and $2.8 billion, respectively.
Most voters in the city of San Diego are off the hook for local bonds this election. However, voters in the northern part of the city might have to vote for the MiraCosta Community College and Solana Beach School District bond measures.
40 year bonds, 2 year schools
Community colleges stand out in this election. Three of the county’s five college districts are asking for bond money — the most in a single year since at least 1994. Combined, they’re asking voters for more than $1.2 billion.
MiraCosta College, a district that stretches from Del Mar to Oceanside, is asking for $455 million. The Grossmont-Cuyamaca College district, which reaches from Spring Valley to Mountain Empire, wants $348 million. And Southwestern College, which serves people from Coronado to Chula Vista, wants $400 million.
The size of the bond measures reflects the expanded mission of community colleges. Where they once might have focused primarily on preparing students for a four-year college, now they’re providing “training programs and certification programs that they never would have necessarily ventured into 10 years ago,” McAllister said.
The arguments in support of the Grossmont-Cuyamaca and Southwestern bond measures bear some striking resemblances.
Both promise the bond will “make college affordable,” prepare their students for “21st century careers” and make “critically needed repairs” throughout their campuses. They both also emphasize the bond will “assist veterans re-entering the workforce.”
Grossmont-Cuyamaca promises to upgrade classrooms and labs, improve facilities for veterans and “build a career and job training campus.” Southwestern also wants to upgrade classrooms and labs, build vocational classrooms and expand job training and support facilities for veterans.
MiraCosta College makes similar promises, including new labs and technology for science, health care and skilled trades, as well as expanding the school’s Veterans’ Center.
But promises don’t tell the whole story. The fine print gives college officials wide latitude on spending. In dense, 400-word sentences near the end of all the ballot measures, the colleges list some other projects the bond money can be used for. They include projects like buying vehicles, building gyms and locker rooms, even installing solar panels.
Grossmont-Cuyamaca’s ballot lists “athletic fields, dugouts (and) stadium seating and lighting,” as allowed bond projects. MiraCosta could pay for “bleachers (and a) press box.”
It’s up to a school board to prioritize projects. As long as they’re listed in the bond measure, school stadiums or new media centers could get funded before a single leaky roof is patched.
For Haney Hong, president and CEO of the San Diego County Taxpayers Association, how a district uses bond money is an ethical question.
“When a bond passes, that means it’s we the people who are willing to relinquish a little bit … in the form of property taxes,” he said. “The superintendents and the school board members have an ethical responsibility to ensure that they’re good stewards of these public resources.”
Watchdogging the money
Grossmont-Cuyamaca and Southwestern’s measures are the only local school bonds opposed by the taxpayers association so far this election.
In part, the association rejected the measures because the districts failed to provide the additional information it requested. In its official statement for both measures, the association wrote that if the districts can’t provide “detailed information about the financials and management of its bond program,” then “it is also likely not to be transparent with the public about these details.”
Community colleges have also attracted thousands of dollars to committees that support their bond measures. A Strong MiraCosta, Yes on MM has attracted the most money, more than $416,000 in support. South Bay Families for Affordable College – Yes on Z has raised $70,000 so this election.
The only bond measure to attract a committee in opposition is the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District. The pro bond group, Careers & Affordable Education for East County – Yes on X, has received more than $56,000, but it has been outraised by No On X, East County Committee, which has more than $85,000 so far.
The taxpayers association has supported six other measures. (Its opinion on National Elementary’s measure is due later in October and it is not taking a side on Solana Beach’s measure.)
Hong considers school bonds one of the organization’s “bread and butter issues.” The association goes through a rigorous process before supporting or endorsing each measure.
“I would never describe public finance as simple,” he said. Looking at the facility plans, financing assumptions and policy proposals can be complicated. “In fact most people probably just wouldn’t have the time to do that.”
[box type=”shadow post-form”]
Oops! We could not locate your form.
[/box]The association aims to fill that gap by providing its own assessments of each bond. It also encourages districts to adopt best practices in things like construction.
It wants to make sure the need — those new classrooms or proverbial leaky roofs — match the bond request. The group also looks at how long it’ll take to pay back those bonds, and how that matches up to the lifespan of what will be built.
Most bonds up for a vote this November focus on traditional capital projects — building stuff like classrooms and libraries. Those are projects with life cycles in the decades. Cajon Valley Union Elementary School District’s measure is different. It focuses specifically on new technology using short-term bonds.
The money could be used to buy laptops, tablets and projectors. It can also pay for software, infrastructure like wi-fi routers, and training related to the new equipment. While traditional bonds last 20 or 30 years, Cajon Valley’s measure requires that all new bonds are paid off in five years.
“It’s like what Apple stores do with iPhones,” Hong said. Consumers can buy up a phone with a loan program from Apple and pay it off over the life of the product.
“Your iPhone, you’re probably not going to use it for more than two years (so) probably that’s how long the term is,” he said.
A similar bond was rejected by voters in the Cajon Valley district in 2014 — it got 51 percent of the vote, shy of the required 55 percent.
Voters also should know that bond authorization or tax money could run out long before any given project is actually completed.
“From a logical perspective if you give voters a list of things you’re going to fund with the bond issue then you ought to fund those things,” McAllister said. “I don’t think that’s a major issue in San Diego but I think it’s a buyer beware kind of deal.”
Bond elections can be a personal issue for voters, particularly for those with children in school.
“I think it’s hard to generalize about bonds,” Hong said. “If (voters) live in a district where there’s been mismanagement or where folks haven’t done well with their bond proposal, I can imagine they would not be particularly pleased if another bond comes up.”
Bond measures in California need 55 percent of the vote to pass. And often, they do. In 2014, 80 percent of the school bonds up for a vote throughout the state were approved by voters.
Voters in San Diego County, however, weren’t so willing to part with their tax money — only half the local measures got voter approval in 2014. It wasn’t always like that. From 2004 to 2010, 23 out of 24 bond measures before voters in the county passed. Since then, only 11 out of 21 have made it.
Voters in parts of East County have the distinction of voting on three separate bond measures next month: the elementary district, a $128 million bond from Grossmont Union High School District and Grossmont-Cuyamaca College’s measure.
Voters in Cardiff and Solana Beach will also vote on MiraCosta College’s bond measure.
Those two districts have also attracted disparate amounts of campaign contributions. Solana Beach’s Keep Our School Great! Yes on JJ committee has raised more than $34,000. The Yes on Measure GG Committee Rebuild 4 Cardiff Kids group has only raised $650.
In the North County, Friends of Fallbrook High School Yes on AA has raised $25,000. Just to the east, Bonsall Taxpayers for Schools, Yes on DD has raised more than $17,000.
In the South Bay, National School District’s Committee for Measure HH raised more than $7,500, mostly from a previous bond measure committee.
In the East County, another study in contrast: Grossmont Union High School District’s Yes for East County High School – Yes on BB has raised almost $300,000, the second most in the county. Cajon Valley Union’s Yes on EE for Cajon Valley Schools hasn’t received any new contribution, but it has $405 from a previous bond measure campaign.
These and other local bond measures are on a ballot that stands out because of the sheer number of state and county ballot measures and propositions. That could be bad news for districts hoping for a friendly crowd in the voting booth. McAllister wonders if long ballots will drive some voters to simply stay home on Nov. 8.
“Or, worse yet,” he said, “they may vote down some of these initiatives because they’re overwhelmed with initiatives statewide as well as locally.”
[box]Coming Friday: A look at who is contributing to school bond campaigns.[/box]
- Editorial Standards Page
- Ethics Policy
- Diversity Statement
- Diversity Staffing Report
- Corrections Policy
- Ownership Structure, Funding
- Founding Date
- Masthead
- Mission Statement with Coverage Priorities
- Fact-checking Standards
- Unnamed Sources Policy
Editorial Standards Page
- Our Mission
- Ethics Policy
- Diversity
- Ownership Structure, Funding and Grants
- Financial Documents
- Fact-checking and Verification Standards
- Unnamed Sources
- Corrections and Clarifications
- Actionable Feedback and Newsroom Contacts
- Masthead
- Byline Policy
- The Trust Project
- Privacy Policy
Our Mission
inewsource is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom dedicated to improving lives in the San Diego region and beyond through impactful, data-based investigative and accountability journalism.
Our Vision
Betrayals of the public trust are revealed and rectified, wrongdoing is deterred, and inequities are illuminated thanks to inewsource’s deep, dogged, fact-based reporting.
Our Values
Truth: Above all else, we value the importance of a free and credible press. Truth is the cornerstone of democracy and the core value for inewsource.
Transparency: We build trust with our readers by adhering to the highest standards and ethics, and to reporting with facts, precision and context.
Collaboration: Our newsroom prioritizes collaboration over competition. We regularly partner with media outlets on reporting projects and to share content.
Community: Our reporting serves the San Diego region, and we strive to build relationships with our audience by getting out into the community to listen and engage.
Ethics Policy
inewsource will conduct its business with the highest standards of decency, fairness and accuracy. These standards shall apply equally to inewsource employees, freelancers and all others engaged in gathering information on behalf of inewsource. All receive a copy of these ethical standards.
In the course of our reporting, we will consistently:
● Identify our organization and ourselves fully and avoid false representations of any kind to any source.
● Obtain consent from all parties before electronically recording any interview or conversation except in extraordinary cases authorized by the Managing Editor and Editor. If a source refuses to be taped, that must be honored; no recordings are to be made without consent.
● Respect the individual’s right to privacy. inewsource will never manipulate or barter private, personal, health, financial or other extraneous information in the course of preparing its reports.
● Any source we describe or write about in any significant manner must be contacted. The employee should document all efforts to contact the source, and if unsuccessful, should summarize these efforts at contact in the body of his/her writing.
In addition, inewsource follows the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists. The latest version, revised in 2014, can be found here.
Editorial Independence Policy
We subscribe to standards of editorial independence adopted by the Institute for Nonprofit News (INN) as follows:
Our organization retains full authority over editorial content to protect the best journalistic and business interests of our organization. We will maintain a firewall between news coverage decisions and sources of all revenue. Acceptance of financial support does not constitute implied or actual endorsement of donors or their products, services or opinions.
We accept gifts, grants and sponsorships from individuals and organizations for the general support of our activities, but our news judgments are made independently and not on the basis of donor support. Our organization also may consider donations to support the coverage of particular topics, but our organization maintains editorial control of the coverage. We will cede no right of review or influence of editorial content, nor of unauthorized distribution of editorial content.
Our organization will make public all donors who give a total of $1,000 or more. We will accept anonymous donations for general support only if it is clear that sufficient safeguards have been put into place that the expenditure of that donation is made independently by our organization and in compliance with INN’s Membership Standards.
Diversity
Diverse Voices
Inclusiveness is at the heart of thinking and acting as journalists, and it supports the educational mandate of inewsource. Race, class, generation, gender, sexual orientation, ability, and geography all affect point of view. inewsource believes that reflecting societal differences in reporting leads to better, more nuanced stories and a better-informed community.
inewsource is committed to employment equity and diversity.
Diverse Staffing Report
Below is a breakdown of staffing data at inewsource. We determine the composition of our staff by asking them to self-identify. It is based on a newsroom of 11 and a total staff of 15 as of August 2020. Percentages are based on 15 total survey responses. The numbers include full-time and part-time staff, full-time fellows and full-time and part-time interns.
| All Staff Percentages are based on 15 total survey responses. The numbers include full-time and part-time staff, full-time fellows and full-time and part-time interns. | Newsroom Percentages are based on 15 completed survey responses to this question. | Business Percentages are based on 15 completed survey responses to this question. | |||
| Gender Identity | Gender Identity | Gender Identity | |||
| Women | 80% | Women | 82% | Women | 75% |
| Men | 20% | Men | 18% | Men | 25% |
| Sexual Orientation | Sexual Orientation | Sexual Orientation | |||
| Straight | 87% | Straight | 82% | Straight | 100% |
| LGBTQ-identifying | 7% | LGBTQ-identifying | 7% | ||
| Not specified | 7% | Not specified | 7% | ||
| Speak a language beyond English at home | 33% | Speak a language beyond English at home | 18% | Speak a language beyond English at home | 75% |
| Race/Ethnicity | Race/Ethnicity | Race/Ethnicity | |||
| White | 67% | White | 73% | White | 50% |
| Hispanic or Latinx | 20% | Two or more races | 18% | Hispanic or Latinx | 50% |
| Two or more races | 13% | Hispanic or Latinx | 9% | ||
| Age | Age | Age | |||
| 20-29 | 40% | 20-29 | 45% | 20-29 | 25% |
| 30-39 | 47% | 30-39 | 45% | 30-39 | 50% |
| 60 or older | 13% | 60 or older | 9% | 60 or older | 25% |
* The percentages in the charts have been rounded and may not add up to 100.
Ownership Structure, Funding and Grants
inewsource is a nonprofit organization, whose legal name is Investigative Newsource. It does business as inewsource. The business was incorporated on Aug. 4, 2009 in the state of California. Tax-exempt status as a 501c3 was granted by the IRS on Sept. 15, 2010. inewsource is funded primarily by individual contributions and foundation grants. We are guided by a board of directors.
Editorial independence: Journalists employed by inewsource take no editorial direction from donors whose contributions may support the organization. inewsource will not hesitate to report on its donors when events warrant. Our Editorial Independence Policy details the firewall between journalism and revenue.
To be transparent with the public, inewsource lists its donors on its website. In cases where a donor is the subject of an inewsource story, additional disclosure will be made.
Financial Documents
We do our due diligence to earn your trust in our reporting, as well as in our governance and financial sustainability. All of our financial documents are made available to view so that our supporters can trust we are sound stewards of your philanthropy. Review our IRS Form 990s, audited financial statements and annual reports:
Tax Returns
Financial Statements
Annual Reports
Fact-checking and Verification Standards
Transparency is one of our core values. Today, there is a need to build trust with our audience because new media and ways of communicating spread lies and slanted news faster than “real” news. At the same time, this era of new technologies makes it easier than ever for news organizations to be transparent. People don’t just have to believe us, they can investigate our investigations with our source materials.
Transparency is key to building credibility.
inewsource reporters have primary responsibility for reporting, writing, and fact-checking their stories. But before a story is published, the reporter reviews all facts and sources with an editor or another reporter. Facts must be traced to a primary source.
In addition, we “transparify” certain investigative stories. This process involves publishing a version of the web story with hyperlinks to all the story’s facts. This is proof that all facts have been documented with primary evidence. We do this to build trust with our readers and to be as transparent as we hope the public figures and institutions that we hold accountable will be.
Unnamed Sources
Not all sources are created equal. Some sources cannot speak authoritatively, provide proper analysis or speak specifically to every inquiry placed before them. To maintain the integrity of our reporting, inewsource reporters must select sources who can speak with validity to the topic at hand, and avoid presenting unqualified or underqualified sources as experts.
If an interviewed source has a conflict of interest, or whose qualifications may be tangential or limited, reporters will note that within the context of the story.
It is incumbent upon reporters to fully background their sources to uncover conflicts of interest or slant prior to using them in a story.
Unless discussed prior to an interview, all subjects talking to inewsource journalists are on the record. Specifically, the source is identified by name and title, and their exact or paraphrased words are attributed to them for publication. If journalists speak with sources who are not politicians, public figures or those not commonly interviewed by journalists, staff should explain clearly that information discussed will be on the record and for publication.
There are times, however, when information may be critical for a story but cannot be found or verified by other means. For example, a source may be able to confirm specific information about a series of events they may have witnessed, but have legitimate concerns about using their name or title. The repercussions to the source could be legal, job-related retribution or personal safety. The source and journalist must discuss these potential dangers and terms of use should be agreed upon by both parties.
If inewsource publishes information from an anonymous source, inewsource will explain to readers, in as much detail as possible, why we agreed to anonymity.
Corrections and Clarifications
inewsource strives for accuracy in everything we do, which is why we are committed to fact checking our content. But sometimes we make errors. When that happens, we correct them. We also clarify stories when something we’ve written is confusing or could be misinterpreted.
We endeavor to always be transparent about our commitment to correcting errors and clarifying misperceptions. When staffers see, hear or read about a possible issue with the accuracy of any inewsource content, they are expected to bring it to the attention of an editor and the web producer so it can be evaluated to determine how to proceed.
Including the web producer is key because inewsource is a multimedia news organization and shares its content with multiple partners on multiple platforms. The web producer must alert these partners about corrections and clarifications.
Corrections and clarifications should be included at the bottom of stories and dated.
Actionable Feedback and Newsroom Contacts
Our audiences know the region we cover and have a stake in maintaining and improving the quality of life in San Diego and Imperial counties. We know your knowledge and insights can help shape what we cover and how we cover it. We invite your comments and complaints on news stories, suggestions for issues to cover or sources to consult. We rely on you to tell us when we get it right and when we need to keep pushing.
Your comments, questions and suggestions can be sent to the team as a whole at contact@inewsource.org or you can contact a specific member of our staff.
Masthead
CEO, Editor and Founder: Lorie Hearn, loriehearn@inewsource.org
Lorie Hearn is the chief executive officer, editor and founder of inewsource. She founded inewsource in the summer of 2009, following a successful reporting and editing career in newspapers. She retired from The San Diego Union-Tribune, where she had been a reporter, Metro Editor and finally the senior editor for Metro and Watchdog Journalism. In addition to department oversight, Hearn personally managed a four-person watchdog team, composed of two data specialists and two investigative reporters. Hearn was a Nieman Foundation fellow at Harvard University in 1994-95. She focused on juvenile justice and drug control policy, a natural course to follow her years as a courts and legal affairs reporter at the San Diego Union and then the Union-Tribune.
Hearn became Metro Editor in 1999 and oversaw regional and city news coverage, which included the city of San Diego’s financial debacle and near bankruptcy. Reporters and editors on Metro during her tenure were part of the Pulitzer Prize-winning stories that exposed Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham and led to his imprisonment.
Hearn began her journalism career as a reporter for the Bucks County Courier Times, a small daily outside of Philadelphia, shortly after graduating from the University of Delaware. During the decades following, she moved through countless beats at five newspapers on both coasts.
High-profile coverage included the historic state Supreme Court election in 1986, when three sitting justices were ousted from the bench, and the 1992 execution of Robert Alton Harris. That gas chamber execution was the first time the death penalty was carried out in California in 25 years.
In her nine years as Metro Editor at the Union-Tribune, Hearn made watchdog reporting a priority. Her reporters produced award-winning investigations covering large and small local governments. The depth and breadth of their public service work was most evident in coverage of the wildfires of 2003 and then 2007, when more than half a million people were evacuated from their homes.
Managing Editor: Laura Wingard, laurawingard@inewsource.org
Laura Wingard is the managing editor at inewsource. She has been an editor in San Diego since 2002, working at The San Diego Union-Tribune, KPBS and now inewsource. At the Union-Tribune, she served in a variety of roles including as enterprise editor, government editor, public safety and legal affairs editor, and metro editor. She directed the newspaper’s award-winning coverage of the October 2007 wildfires and the 2010 disappearance of Poway teenager Chelsea King. She also oversaw reporting on San Diego’s pension crisis.
For two years, Wingard was news and digital editor at KPBS, overseeing a team of four multimedia reporters and two web producers. She also was the KPBS liaison with inewsource and collaborated with inewsource chief executive officer and editor Lorie Hearn on investigative work by both news organizations.
Wingard also worked at the Las Vegas Review-Journal as the city editor and as an award-winning reporter covering the environment and politics. She also was the assistant managing editor for metro at The Press-Enterprise in Riverside. She earned her bachelor’s degree at California State University, Fullerton, with a double major in communications/journalism and political science.
Assistant Editor and Senior Reporter: Brad Racino, bradracino@inewsource.org
Brad Racino is the assistant editor and a senior reporter at inewsource. He has produced investigations for print, radio and TV on topics including political corruption, transportation, health, maritime, education and nonprofits.
His cross-platform reporting for inewsource has earned more than 50 awards since 2012, including back-to-back national medals from Investigative Reporters and Editors, two national Edward R. Murrow awards, a Meyer “Mike” Berger award from New York City’s Columbia Journalism School, the Sol Price Award for Responsible Journalism, San Diego SPJ’s First Amendment Award, and a national Emmy nomination.
In 2017, Racino was selected by the Institute for Nonprofit News as one of 10 “Emerging Leaders” in U.S. nonprofit journalism.
Racino has worked as a reporter and database analyst for News21; as a photographer, videographer and reporter for the Columbia Missourian; as a project coordinator for the National Freedom of Information Coalition and as a videographer and editor for Verizon Fios1 TV in New York. He received his master’s degree in journalism from the University of Missouri in 2012.
Byline Policy
Most of our articles carry a byline to identify the author. In some cases, inewsource will use a brand byline such as “Staff” or “inewsource” for internal or editorial information about the newsroom. In these instances, inewsource‘s Editor and Managing Editor are responsible for content that uses a brand byline.
The Trust Project
inewsource is proud to be a member of The Trust Project and support efforts to increase transparency in journalism by displaying the 8 Trust Indicators on our stories. We launched the Trust Indicators on Sep. 16, 2020.
Privacy Policy
inewsource has prepared this Privacy Policy to explain how we collect, use, protect, and share information when you use our inewsource.org website (the “Site“) or when you use any of our services (the “Services“).
By using the Site or Services you consent to this Privacy Policy.
Log Data
Like many site operators, we collect information that your browser sends whenever you visit our site (“Log Data”).
This Log Data may include information such as your computer’s Internet Protocol (“IP”) address, browser type, browser version, the pages of our site that you visit, the time and date of your visit, the time spent on those pages and other statistics.
Cookies
Cookies are files with small amount of data, which may include an anonymous unique identifier. Cookies are sent to your browser from a web site and stored on your computer or mobile device.
Like many sites, we use “cookies” to collect information. You can instruct your browser to refuse all cookies or to indicate when a cookie is being sent. However, if you do not accept cookies, you may not be able to use some portions of our site.
Certain pages on our site may set other third party cookies. For example, we may embed content, such as videos, from another site that sets a cookie. While we try to minimize these third party cookies, we can’t always control what cookies this third party content sets.
Additionally, we may use third party services — such as those that provide social media conveniences, measure traffic, send newsletters and facilitate donations — that may place cookies on your computer. We don’t have any way of knowing how such services handle the resulting data internally. inewsource makes no claim, nor takes liability for the insecure submission of information via these applications.
Here are the services whose cookies you can find on inewsource.org:
- Sharing buttons for Facebook and Twitter. These use the standard scripts provided by each company.
- Google Analytics, which we use to measure site traffic. Google Analytics gathers certain non-personally identifying information over time, such as your IP address, browser type, internet service provider, referring and exit pages, time stamp, and similar data. We also use Facebook Pixel to measure, optimize and build audiences for advertising campaigns served on Facebook. In particular it enables us to see how our users move between devices when accessing our website and Facebook, to ensure that our Facebook advertising is seen by our users most likely to be interested in such advertising by analyzing which content a user has viewed and interacted with on our website.
- Stripe, which allows us to accept donations through our website.
- Salesforce to manage newsletter subscriber, donor, and other identifiable user data.
- Mailchimp, to manage newsletter distributions. We collect your email address if you choose to subscribe to one of our email newsletters or email news alerts. Other optional information that you enter when subscribing – such as your first and last names or city are simply so that we can deliver more personalized email newsletters. We DO NOT sell, rent or market your information to any other parties. We retain your information only as long as necessary to provide your service. When we send emails, it collects some data about which users open the emails and which links are clicked. We use this information to optimize our email newsletters and, as aggregate information, to explain what percentage of our users open and interact with our newsletters.
Personal Data
We only collect personally identifiable information such as your name and email address when you sign up for a newsletter, donate to our organization, or otherwise submit it to us voluntarily. We do not share your personal data with any third parties other than some common service providers, whose products use your information to help us improve our site, deliver newsletters, or allow us to offer donation opportunities.
inewsource limits access to all user data for the purposes of newsletter, fundraising, and customer service only. User data is not sold to or otherwise shared with anyone not working with or for the inewsource.
You may unsubscribe or opt-out of our email and mail communications at any time by hitting the “unsubscribe” button in any email you receive from inewsource, or by emailing us at contact@inewsource.org or calling us at 619-594-5100.
Donor Information
The identities of all donors will be listed on our website. inewsource does not share, trade, sell, or otherwise release donors’ personal information to any third parties.
Refunds
If you encounter errors when donating on the website, please contact us at members@inewsource.org. For example, if you submit a donation for an incorrect amount or make a duplicate transaction please email us immediately so we can reverse the charges.
Cancellation of Recurring Donations
You can cancel your monthly recurring donations free of charge by notifying us at members@inewsource.org.
Links to Other Websites
Our site may contain links to documents, resources or other websites that we think may be of interest to you. We have no control over these other sites or their content. You should be aware when you leave our site for another, and remember that other sites are governed by their own user agreements and privacy policies, which should be available to you to read.
Disclaimers and Limitation of Liability
Although we take reasonable steps to prevent the introduction of viruses, worms, “Trojan Horses” or other destructive materials to our site, we do not guarantee or warrant that our site or materials that may be downloaded from our site are free from such destructive features. We are not liable for any damages or harm attributable to such features. We are not liable for any claim, loss or injust based on errors, omissions, interruptions or other inaccuracies on our site, nor for any claim, loss or injust that results from your use of this site or your breach of any provision of this User Agreement.
Contact Us
If there are any questions regarding this privacy policy, please contact us at contact@inewsource.org or call us at 619-594-5100.
Ethics Policy
This policy can be found on this page.Diversity Statement
This policy can be found on this page.Diversity Staffing Report
This policy can be found on this page.Corrections Policy
This policy can be found on this page.Ownership Structure, Funding
This policy can be found on this page.Founding Date
2009-11-01Masthead
This policy can be found on this page.Mission Statement with Coverage Priorities
This policy can be found on this page.Fact-checking Standards
This policy can be found on this page.Unnamed Sources Policy
This policy can be found on this page.Article Post Types
post