Mountain or molehill?
My job as a journalist is to watch my government. If, when I look in, I happen to find a problem, my goal is to make the problem public and trust the public to fix it. It’s noble work, in my opinion, and I am excited to devote my life to it. However, I also operate under the assumption that if one looks closely enough at anything and anyone, our government included, one is bound to find fault. Performing responsible journalistic scrutiny without being impossible to please is a balancing act I am desperately trying to master. Perhaps you can help me.
I have been looking very closely at Boone County Family Resources, and I have reported what I have seen. In my stories, including one in this morning’s Missourian, I have given you, the reader, the best obtainable version of the truth. I have told you what’s going on at an agency that is important, well funded and usually flies under the media radar. Make no mistake, I am proud of and confident in my work.
Most taxpayers agree that it’s a bad thing when an agency doesn’t quite follow the letter of the law, especially when it operates on a annual budget of nearly $8 million in public money. Most taxpayers would agree that it’s unusual for a board to start the process to remove a member because, apparently, he has made too many waves and taken up too much time with questions. Most taxpayers would say that is bad policy.
What I’ve learned so far might be a symptom of a very sick institution, or it might just be the oversight and frustration one can find at any large, complicated governmental body. At what point does journalistic scrutiny become picking on people?
Let’s talk specifics. You know that e-mail thread I referenced in the story? Well, if you look closely, several e-mails are addressed to the entire board and there’s a discussion. I’m not a lawyer, but my suspicion is that the e-mail counts as a public meeting. The Sunshine Law says that a public body can’t have a public meeting without publicizing it 24 hours in advance. But I didn’t bring it up. I thought about doing some research to test my hypothesis and then, if it proved correct, writing a line or two about it. Then I started thinking about bosses and teachers I’ve had who, try as I might, I could never please.
Tell me*, is there more to learn at BCFR or is it time to watchdog other governmental bodies?
A different but related question: When it comes to public institutions, how big does an infraction have to be to justify a story?
*Comments from BCFR board members suggesting that it’s time to watchdog someone else will be taken as red flags.**
**I was being funny there. Or trying, anyway.
Filed under: County Government
Ms. Cook:
It is time someone put the Boone County government under some scrutiny. Please keep after this BCFR story. It sounds like someone’s hand is in the cookie jar and is about to be caught. BTW, how much of what this agency spends is federal money and what agency oversees how it is used?
That board is losing a valuable member in Ms. Martin. If they succeed in throwing Mr. Tatlow out, I suppose no one else will ever question where all that money is going.
Also, you might want to look at the recent construction management – agent contract for the Boone County Courthouse Expansion. While not illegal under state law, it certainly is a waste of the taxpayers’ money, as is the construction management – agent contract for the Boone Hospital project.
Construction management and delivery methods are very complex. For some background in how they work, you might go to http://www.publicschoolconstructionmethods.blogspot.com.
Susan
Important story and definitely not a molehill. All public agencies should be held to this level of scrutiny. The school board is. City Council is. County commission, not so much. So I agree with the first poster.
I agree that any public authority should be examined, with an eye for even the slightest infraction.
However, as a journalist, you should ensure that you maintain professional evidentiary standards. It seems that what we are dealing with is a unclear legal issue. We know that a treasurer must be bonded. But, does a board member with the title secretary/treasurer whose duties include only secretarial tasks legally qualify as treasurer? We have a case here of legal ambiguity, not a case of mischief.
You go on to mention that the problem described in this story is a strong indicator of further wrong doing. What evidence do you have of this claim? Such an accusation could be severely damaging to the people served by BCFR.
We are talking about an agency that works in a public service field that is generally underfunded. 8 million dollars is a striking figure, so it is no surprise that you mention it frequently. But have you taken the time to research what this money goes toward? A quick search shows us that BCFR serves about 1200 individuals in need in our community. Many of those served require extensive, and expensive, assistance.
You strike me as a young and able journalist. But I implore you to always focus on ensuring objectivity in each of your stories. Never blind yourself with the seductive side of a particular story. The truth isn’t always seductive; but the truth should always be your goal.
Michael
Response to Michael’s post:
To the best of my knowledge, reporters are not expected to provide legal documentation or “evidentiary proof” in writing about the actions of public bodies and public officials. If they were, newspapers and magazines would go out of business.
The services provided by the agency to the 1200 individuals served have not been at issue. The issues are the governance of the agency under its own bylaws, the laws of the state of Missouri, accountability of the governing board, and the professional conduct of members of the board.
The role of reporters is to report to the public on the discussions and actions of public officials, boards and staff. Ms. Cook reported with accuracy on the meetings and communications of the BCFR board. She reported on concerns brought up by board members in their quest to actually understand and better provide for the constituency of that agency. She reported truthfully on what she saw and heard. I believe truth is her goal, and if some of the board are determined to hide the real truth, then exposing that to the public is her duty as a reporter.
You are asking Ms. Cook to cover up the story of the board’s actions by focusing only on agency services and ignoring the problems within its governing board. Perhaps a story about the services provided by Boone County Family Resources would be nice, but it is not the story Ms. Cook is writing at this point.
Susan
I see where you’re coming from, though, Michael. I see why you would want me to steer clear of the stuff that’s not cut and dry and focus on how well the agency is actually doing. I have to respectfully disagree with you, though. Let me explain my position.
In the course of my reporting I found that Ms. Martin was never told she needed a bond and that, when she asked, she was given incorrect information. I am extremely confident that that information is accurate. I included it in my article because it is evidence suggestive of confusion, ignorance and misinformation floating around on a board that manages $8 million of public money and provides services for some of Boone County’s most vulnerable citizens.
In situations where I think something might be wrong, I, like most reporters, take it upon myself to try to report the extent of what I know. I try to cut back on “gate-keeping” or deeming information unworthy of being included in a news article as much as I can while maintaining strict standards of accuracy. I let the entire supporting cast of verified facts accompany the core information as context. I believe that context is incredibly important to readers when making educated decisions.
I don’t think BCFR is running quite right. I feel like something is off. It might be nothing. That is for the readers to decide. My job is simply to make as much information available to you as possible. You can deem the information I reported unworthy of action if you wish or you can leap towards corrective measures. I will respect whatever decision you make.
To Susan – I never asked for reporters to provide legal documentation or any such thing. But journalists should maintain high evidentiary standards. This only means that journalists should avoid speculation and the making of unfounded claims. And I certainly never asked for a cover up.
You’re right to say that journalists should report to the public on the discussions and actions of public officials, boards and staff. But these reports should be fair and as objective as possible. The reporter should attempt to acquire and report from all sides of an issue. Morgan’s article did an excellent job of reporting from the perspective of the secretary/treasurer and the outed board member. But what of the other side? Little is said. If efforts were made to get comments from other board members or the director, this was not made clear.
We can take some direction from the Society of Professional Journalists’ code of ethics. (see http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp)
— Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
— Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
But above all, “Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.”
Let’s review.
Ms. Martin wasn’t told she needed a bond. The agency believed she didn’t. It isn’t certain that this information was inaccurate. The agency attorney (an attorney for the County of Boone) argued she was the secretary or the treasurer. That is a disjunction, not a conjunction. If I say Ms. Martin is the secretary or the treasurer, then that is true just in case she fills the role of either one. As it goes, Ms. Martin fills the role of a secretary alone. She needn’t be the treasurer as well.
But perhaps Ms. Martin was the treasurer as well. But do we have any evidence for this claim? Well, if she is the treasurer of the board, the board must have a treasury. Does it? You mention that BCFR has a budget of 8 million per annum, I believe. But is that money directly under the control of the Board of Directors? Morgan’s article leads us to believe that it is, but that is not substantiated. In fact, the board does not, to my knowledge, have signatory control over that money. I’m sure the board must approve the budget, but that doesn’t warrant having a treasurer. The board of directors for Boone County Family Resources does not handle funds directly, public or private. They merely approve the way in which an organization handles funds, which has its own internal department for the issuance of checks and the dispersement of money.
No treasury no treasurer. No treasurer, no bonding required. Now, if the attorney general’s office disagrees, at least now we see the judgment of the agencies attorney was not careless or unfounded.
To Morgan: If you are reporting the available facts as objectively as possible, then I commend you. But it seems that there is still a significant side to the story that remains untold. I implore you: Distinguish advocacy from reporting. Fairly gather and report.
Best,
Michael
The unfortunate thing with the articles are that the reporter has never once looked at it from the other side. She has certainly given two board members almost all of the attention. How can the public decide if they don’t have the information to form a decision?
John,
I agree entirely. And this is just the problem I’ve been noting. The story is biased.
For Morgan, just curious, how did you happen upon this story?
Michael
John: We got an anonymous tip, suggesting that a Missourian reporter should go to a meeting.
John and Michael:
I take your concerns very seriously. Maintaining objectivity when writing investigative stories is an incredibly difficult and important thing. In fact, I’m using objectivity theory and credibility research as the theoretical framework for the thesis I am currently writing.
I have tried to be careful to avoid advocacy in my work, but it’s difficult to be a watchdog if you aren’t willing to take a position when you think something is wrong. That said, it’s not impossible to maintain some semblance of objectivity and doing so is extremely important. I will try harder to do that. Much harder. In fact, I will try harder this very day, as I am about to write a story about last night’s meeting. Read it tomorrow and tell me what you think.
Keep on writing me about my work. I like to make my readers happy, but I also like to let them call me out. I’m all about learning. There’s no learning without criticism.
Oh, and I can’t sign off without forgetting to tag on the obligatory, “I stand by my story” statement. I stand by my story and I believe I have fulfilled my responsibility as a watchdog. I’m proud of my work. I admit, though, that there’s always a possibility that I could be MORE proud of my work.
This is an interesting debate, made more interesting by the fact that technology — and bloggery — already answered several of John’s and Michael’s concerns.
Michael says, “journalists should maintain high evidentiary standards.”
The reporter provides raw evidence, something newsprint has no room for and I’ve personally never seen before. That evidence includes an email chain that proves many of the claims in question; an email from the board attorney; and positive statements about Mr. Tatlow that appear to have been withheld from the reporter by the family resources board.
Email Chain:
http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2007/10/31/treasurers-resignation-oct-9-e-mail-thread/
ALL Tatlow Statements:
http://www.columbiamissourian.com/media/pdf/missourian/2007/BCFRmemos.pdf
Attorney email:
http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2007/10/31/treasurers-resignation-oct-26-e-mail-jane-kruse/
Michael says, “The reporter should attempt to acquire and report from all sides of an issue.”
And the reader should attempt to read all the articles and associated information. All sides of the issue are reported without paraphrase or editorial discretion with the email chain and the board member comments.
By including comments about Tatlow that were omitted — and inaccurately reported by the Columbia Tribune as a result — the reporter crafts an even more objective and fair story than she was initially handed.
Michael says, “If efforts were made to get comments from other board members or the director, this was not made clear.”
What? Read the comments, page after page, in PDF form. And read the first story, where I count over a dozen views from the other side:
1) “Board members said they’ve grown tired…”
2) “Angry members raised their voices as they accused…”
3) “I think you’re full of crap,” board member Russ Williams said.
4) Williams also accused Tatlow of “sabotage of the board’s operations.”
5) “I’m personally offended by this letter because it says that we’re not doing our job,” board member Wanda Marvel said of the notice from the attorney general.
6) Later, she said, “I think you’re a liability. You’re not a team player.”
7) Board Chairman Bob Bailey also took Tatlow to task: “Why didn’t you call and ask the executive director? Why didn’t you keep it internal? … If you don’t want to serve on this board, why don’t you just step down?”
Family Resources Executive Director Les Wagner wrote that Tatlow’s remarks…
9) Wagner said members are notified….
10) Joan Chenault, coordinator of training and quality assurance for Family Resources, said…
11) Bailey made similar comments…
12) “There aren’t any,” Bailey said….
13) Bailey said no future meetings are scheduled…
http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2007/10/24/family-resources-board-seeks-removal-member-who-ha/
My point was that the reporter never (from what I can see) interviewed any of the other board members but took to great pains to speak with Martin and Tatlow. Sure, picking up comments at the public meeting was nice but what about direct questions for the other side of the conflict? By doing this early on, she gave Martin and Tatlow a forum for their side of the story and it was too one sided.
The last story was more balanced than the earlier versions in my opinion.
Now you’re splitting hairs — and you’re not reading closely again.
I read several quotes in all the stories from other board members, both from the meeting and from one-on-one interviews. These look like interview responses to me, from the second story:
1) Wagner said that while surety bonds are different from insurance, Boone County Family Resources has “a thorough and complete insurance policy” that is adequate to cover all aspects of its activities.
2) Wagner said that, in fact, the board’s treasurer has no additional fiduciary responsibilities beyond those of other board members and therefore requires no special training.
3) As far as letting Martin know she needed to be bonded, Wagner said, “I think that the fact that the treasurer needs a surety bond has been overlooked by the agency. We didn’t know she needed to provide one. In the future, whoever holds the office will need to provide (a surety bond), and the agency will pay for it.”
Beyond emails, meeting comments, several pages of negative stuff about Mr. Tatlow, and interview quotes, how much more is there for the other board members to say?
What’s more, I don’t see that much from Mr. Tatlow. He’s interviewed here and there, but I certainly wouldn’t call those interviews giving him a “forum.”
To be fair, why don’t you also criticize the board for withholding the Martin and Tatlow comments from the reporter?