While I still try to post letters and comments on the Indianola Independent Advocate, it is clear that the thumb is on the scale against conservatives with this publication. Conservatives should still submit letters and comments, but have to know the score. This is why it is so important to read Warren’s Voice.
Join the effort to preserve our community by becoming a monthly donor today!
In a prior school board election, the Advocate announced a policy where letter writers should not attack other candidates, but focus on why their candidates should win. The Advocate then published an attack implying a conservative candidate was an “extremist” for belonging to Moms for Liberty.
When I tried to respond to a letter, during this election, saying there were two campaigns concerning Bradi Darrah’s run for school board, and that one was a smear campaign, the Advocate editor indicated that I had written too many letters and comments and would not publish it.
When Kedron Bardwell made a comment attacking me, I made a point-by-point response in a sarcastic manner similar to Bardwell’s comment and was verbally told it would not be published as it was a “personal attack”.
During this campaign, the Advocate editor informed Steve Kirby and I by email that no more comments on Bradi Darrah refusing to answer questions would be allowed unless we added “a candidate [did] not attend an open candidate forum in which the Republican party had the opportunity to vet questions before they were asked. Neither did that candidate offer any explanation for their failure to attend and take questions that were vetted beforehand.”
For us to fail to score points for the other team was “disingenuous” in her view.
I added that exact required statement to a comment and it was not published because I failed to identify Dr. Ryan Werling as the candidate involved, although he was not identified in the editor’s own demand.
The Advocate’s editor told me in writing, and the public in her publication, that there would be absolutely no more comments or letters on the school board race published after Friday. On the evening before the election, I found out that a letter from school board member Ben Metzger attacked those opposing Darrah as “adults who have decided to smear, lie and discredit a school board candidate”.
Last night I submitted a comment to that letter. I also asked the Advocate editor to publish it by voicemail, email and text. Since it was not published, I later submitted a short response, which was published in part, but I was not allowed to state my information was truthful or accurate, even after I provided documentation, although Metzger was allowed to say I was lying.
My full unpublished comment follows:
Mr. Metzger, are you familiar with the Commandment “Thou shalt not lie”? If you are, then I would recommend that you follow my practice of being scrupulously accurate concerning what I say about a candidate, including, specifically, Bradi Darrah. You should apply that same standard to opinion letter writers.
I did not reply until now because the editor of this paper stated in this publication, and to me personally by email, that no more letters or comments on the school board race would be published after Friday’s edition. I now, on the evening before the election, became aware that an exception was made for your letter. So, I am going to comment.
Since I understand you are normally a decent person, I am sure your own morals will result in a public apology to me.
It is accurate to say, as I said in my letter “Don’t Vote for Darrah”, published in this publication on October 28, 2025, that “Ms. [Bradi] Darrah refused to answer [seven] questions” which were “asked by a constituent and former teacher on issues pertinent to the school board position.” I noted in a comment to my own letter that the refusal was made on Facebook. I relied on screenshots of those questions and Ms. Darrah’s refusal.
My letter accurately quoted Ms. Darrah’s reasons for refusing to answer these questions. I then discussed my reasons as to why Ms. Darrah’s reasons for refusal were “nonsense” and were unacceptable because these questions addressed “[i]mportant policy questions, including education issues”. As I stated there, “Because citizens have differing views on what are the wisest policies and most appropriate use of their tax dollars, they EXPECT candidates to answer their questions.”
In comments to other letters, I repeated my concerns on these issues and also raised other issues for which I accurately cited and relied on publicly available sources.
Accurate information, on a school board candidate’s bald refusal to answer pertinent rational questions on issues ranging from boys on girls athletic teams and in their locker rooms to the school logo, and reasoned discourse on why this refusal is not acceptable does NOT constitute a “smear, lie and discredit[ing] a school board candidate.” That is a false claim.
It is a false statement to say that I or others “ love to smear people”. We do love our country and, unlike some, would not hesitate to affirmatively answer a question asking if we do love our country.
One of the reasons we love our country is that accurate and fair free speech criticism, including strong criticism, of candidates is protected by our country’s traditions as well as the United States and Iowa Constitutions. Why do you, in effect, condemn the exercise of that tradition by labeling truth telling as a “smear” or “lie”?
Bullies lie and condemn those who tell the truth. As you are a member of the school board, I hope your repeated false statements were based on poor research or understanding or an excess of emotion, and not deliberate falsehood. But, if they were deliberate falsehoods, you should take your own advice – “stop being a bully. Our students are watching.”
NOTE: Metzger’s letter and my shortened response is at: https://www.indianola-ia.com/opinion/letter-to-the-editor-we-can-do-better/article_f13954a2-de7d-4cb0-bb04-79e0bdb47e66.html
Donald W. Bohlken is a retired Iowa Administrative Law Judge and Attorney
Leave a Reply