Yellott’s refusal to speak to the media is perplexing

MHCC District board candidate George “Sonny” Yellott has refused to speak with multiple Advocate staff members because of his skepticism of the media, which he accused of “not comporting itself properly over the last 10 years.”

For the last several years, transparency has been one of the main focuses of the MHCC board but Yellott, whether he has intended to or not, has thus far shown he does not want to follow in their footsteps.

Of course, even though an accusation of improper conduct or yellow journalism may apply to some newspapers and other media base organizations, refusing to make even a statement about why you are running for a public position to the media, which is the only real way to get that information to said public, is downright perplexing.

After all, though we may be a newspaper, we are still students, and if he is not willing to speak with people (specifically those that would be impacted should he be elected) who have a vital interest in his potential role in the college, how does he expect to fulfill his role as MHCC board member if he does not know what the concerns of its members are?

In addition, this situation can be frustrating because though Yellott has refused to speak with The Advocate (as well as any other publication for that matter), as a public figure, every word he says at any board meeting (which is when the board makes its official actions) is a matter of public record.

The Advocate always has a staff member at the monthly board meetings. We write about the actions the board takes and we often include quotes spoken by members and include them in our articles.

Will Yellott also refuse to speak at these meetings in fear that we may print slanderous “lies?” To what extent will he make efforts to evade the questions that a board member must answer from those that it represents?

The Gresham Outlook said it very well in an editorial in their May 7 issue: “By refusing to discuss his candidacy with local media, (Yellott) is telling voters they are not entitled to a deeper understanding of the positions he holds most dear.”

As it is, The Advocate has nothing much to tell you about Yellott. All we know is that he doesn’t think much of the “media.” We don’t know what his specific desires for the college as a board member would be, we don’t know if he hates cute kittens — heck, we don’t know if he really knows anything about MHCC at all.

But that’s not to say Yellott is not a decent fit for MHCC (though his unwillingness to be transparent makes that less likely). He just hasn’t given us the opportunity to find out and being asked to fill a pivotal decision-making position with little or no valid information about a candidate is not something we feel comfortable with.

In a way, he’s already shown he is unwilling to support at least one MHCC program (media). What other programs is he unwilling to support?

Given this situation, The Advocate believes there are two things that may need to be done here.

Either Yellott needs to face his apparent phobia of the media and realize that speaking with the student newspaper at a college he claims he wants to help is something he shouldn’t feel uncomfortable with — or Oregonians should look to write-in a different name for this board position, because at this point The Advocate cannot in good conscience support electing such a candidate