Opinions; Facts not Required: Tony Messenger

I don't have anything, personally, against Tony Messenger. On a personal level he seems like a nice enough guy, but I certainly take issue with some of his reporting.

His piece at "Political Fix," dated yesterday, With no fanfare, Blunt signs village law repeal, takes this little jab at Missouri Republican House Speaker, Rod Jetton:

"Jetton was widely believed to be responsible for the (village) law being inserted into an omnibus bill a year ago at the behest of developer Robert Plaster, who has also been a campaign donor to Blunt."

I don't think there's, necessarily, a thing wrong with Messenger reporting that Jetton was widely believed to be responsible for the village law being inserted into an omnibus bill, what I take issue with is his continued (along with some other reporters) neglect to mention that Jetton has denied inserting the village law into that omnibus bill.

It's one thing to disparage a person's character, but then to neglect quoting or mentioning that the person has denied what is "widely believed," as Messenger, himself heard and reported Jetton saying in this Messenger blog entry, without any proof to offer that Jetton is lying, to me, is the worst kind of journalistic assault, and it isn't the first time Messenger has engaged in the tactic.

It is "widely believed" that Jetton was responsible "for the (village) law being inserted into an omnibus bill a year ago at the behest of developer Robert Plaster," in part, because of this sort of reporting. Apparently, reporters like Messenger refuse to spend the time required to track down who IS responsible for inserting it. If it was Jetton, fine, I have no problem with that, but to consistently smear someone with doing something they have denied doing with no proof or substantiation, in my opinion, is just wrong.

So, chalk me up as one who, personally, likes Messenger but continues to have little respect for his journalistic integrity, in fact, in some circles around the Queen City, it is "widely believed" he has none.

Tony Messenger Ducks Out of Town

Takes *dignity* with him

Yesterday I started writing a long, complicated post about the double whammy that Tony Messenger, outgoing Editorial Page Editor and George Freeman, former Editorial Page Editor of the Springfield News-Leader wrote regarding "dignity," "respect" and Vincent David Jericho but I had a discussion with a friend of mine last night and I rethought my approach.

On the one hand we had a subtle suggestion that there is too much political squabbling going on in Springfield these days, implying that Springfield is beginning to sound a bit undignified, a bit too much like Jefferson City and Washington D.C. these days. I read that column first.

In it, a person might get the impression that dignity is exampled by a person who allows a newspaper editorial writer to sit at your table, go back to the paper and criticize your guest of honor but invites the newspaper editorial writer back so he can have the option of insulting your guest of honor again. According to Messenger, that's the way adults act. That's gracious. And to be dignified, well, the epitome of dignity, according to Messenger is retired Greene County Circuit Court judge J. Miles Sweeney, in fact, Messenger wrote, Springfield IS retired Greene County Circuit Court judge J. Miles Sweeney and this quote from Sweeney is evidence of that:

"Treat people with respect, even if they're not respectable people."

So, how do you treat people with respect? I guess it's as simple as shaking someone's offered hand even if one doesn't have respect for the person offering the hand.

In Tony Messenger's world dignity is a very simple matter, respect is due all. Sitting in prison because you beat your wife and hurt your young son? No problem, have a "Voice of the Day" column on Tony Messenger! Accused of hassling a young student in a university social program? Sit at Messenger's table and prepare to be defended by a 2,000 word editorial column. Don't worry, we respect all --- but, but...

If you are a Republican in Jefferson City working to give urban blacks an opportunity at school choice by offering tax credits to contributors of a scholarship fund but refuse to go along with Messenger's erroneous definition of tax credits and call them vouchers you are a LIAR, you walk like a duck, quack like a duck and you lie (?) like a duck (apparently Tony doesn't care much for ducks). When pressed that the tax credits WERE tax credits and not vouchers, it didn't matter what you called them to Tony Messenger and he never apologized for trying to bully Republicans into identifying them as such. He never apologized for his sad and dishonest analysis of the bill.

We agree and disagree with people at the table and we "do it as grown-ups," around here! None of our fine citizens fall short or "ride the short bus" around here!

Dignity, that's what we need. Today, there are simply too many "political squabbles" in Springfield, Missouri, the traditionally dignified city.

"Treat people with respect, even if they're not respectable people." - J. Miles Sweeney.

Then, as is my habit, I clicked on the online "opinion" page of the Springfield News-Leader and read the column written by George Freeman. Freeman wasn't so subtle as Messenger but that's okay. Freeman deserves a spot at the table, deserves respect and we should all act like "grown ups," here in the dignified city of Springfield. Wife beaters and former Editorial Page Editors, all are welcome, all have a place at the table.

As Freeman invited Springfieldians to work their wiles to try to cause radio talk show host Vincent David Jericho to lose his job, and his advertisers, it became apparent that he disagrees with Tony Messenger. That Freeman doesn't think everyone with whom we disagree should be respected and be given a place at the table of Springfield, Missouri.

Well, that's what dignified bullies (or editorial page editors) do, I guess. Decide for the rest of us what we should do, educate us. Offer us addresses to criticize a man out of a job while failing to offer us the full address of a wife beater criticizing the Sheriff.

There is a seat at the table for everyone? Really?

"Treat people with respect, even if they're not respectable people." Really?

Messenger's "ducking" out of town now and waddling back to Jefferson City's table. I hope there's plenty of room for him there. I hope they act like "grown-ups" there. I hope the ducks ain't too mad for being compared to Republicans.

Respect the ducks!

Quack.

The immigration debate

Yes, it's complicated, yes, it's divisive

Some time ago I used to try to make the case that people who are opposed to illegal immigrants receiving amnesty and people who wanted to see the law of the land of America regarding illegal immigration be enforced are not bigots, but you know what? I realized that just as on any issue and just as in any group of people, people band together for different reasons. For that reason, I realized that while I am not bigoted against brown skinned, black skinned, yellow skinned, red skinned, or purple fingered people who come into our country either legally or illegally, and the majority of people against amnesty for immigrants who came here illegally and would like to see our border laws enforced and employers pay a steep penalty for employing those immigrants who have entered our soveriegn nation illegally are not bigoted that some people may be. I have come to the realization that the motivations of some are convoluted and complicated and bigotry against people of different nationalities or skin color may play a part in some people's overall reason for opposing illegal immigrant amnesty, supporting border security and stricter laws against employers who hire such illegal immigrants. So I don't argue anymore that bigotry is not a factor for anyone, I argue that it isn't a factor for me and it shouldn't be a factor for anyone.

What is your definition of rude and uncivil behavior? What is your definition of civility and respect?

If someone throws a pair of tennis balls at a man and says, "Here, this is the only pair of these you'll ever have," a crowd of civil and respectful people might suck in some air and deplete the oxygen in the room. Those people might later issue scathing reviews of such behavior as "disrespectful," as "rude," as "crude" and as "uncivil," and I'll even concede that they would have a point.

The exclamation of tennis balls at the end of the sensationalized sentence could certainly be justified as an act of disrespect accompanied by such a comment coming from a radio talk show host at an immigration debate. But, in fact, he might have done so because he's tired of back-handed newspaper editorials that generalize and oversimply the issue of immigration reform themselves by repeatedly and regularly implying that all those who oppose amnesty, propose secure borders and would like to see the law of the land enforced are either bigoted xenophobes or ill-informed ignoramuses or a combination of the two. That, you see, is civil, in their opinion. That sweeping characterization is respectful. That sentiment is neither rude nor crude in the opinion of such an editorialist.

Let me tell you something, two wrongs don't make a right, but personally, I would much rather see the knife welded by the villan coming at me so that I would have an opportunity to defend myself against it than have it sneak, stealthily and silently from behind, never seeing it before it is slid so back-handly between my shoulder blades.

How many tennis balls does it take when given an opportunity to debate an issue for one to agree repeatedly with one's opponent, for one to offer no research and for one to just talk about how the divisive rhetoric on the part of the country needs to end? Zero.

The one offered the opportunity to debate in a forum in Springfield on last Thursday evening didn't offer any real and tangible reasons to support amnesty, to keep our borders unsecure and open and to continue to allow employers of illegal aliens to hire them with no or a mostly un-enforced penalty. In fact, anything like that, in his mind, would do more good than harm (?) but we don't know why because neither at the debate or in a recent editorial at the Springfield News-Leader does the proponent of those ideas tell us why those sentiments would be more good for our country than bad.

How many tennis balls does it take to slink back to the editorial board to form a consensus view on behalf of the Springfield News-Leader that slyly characterizes those who oppose illegal immigrant amnesty, support border security and tough employer penalty for the hiring of illegals as ill-informed, ignorant bigots?

It doesn't even take two.

I agree with the News-Leader, immigration reform is a complicated issue. The divisive rhetoric needs to stop on the part of those who are sympathetic to the illegal immigrant population. Those who want to talk out of both sides of their mouths, on the one hand stating, "It's complicated," and on the other hand refusing to even entertain the opinions of those who disagree with their sentiment for tangible and legitimate reasons and they need to stop characterizing those who disagree with them with generalized slander and assumption.

No, two wrongs don't make a right but lets at least recognize that there are two wrongs. Let's not pretend that when a debate takes place in the physical world and one party "rises above" disrespect and rudeness in that physical realm when he is face to face with his opponent and has the opportunity to make his case but fails to, then returns to his office, in quiet reflection and takes the hidden knife out of his pocket to carve away the credibility of those who feel so passionately about this issue for legitimate reasons and place in the cavity he has created the infection of generalized slander toward all is somehow more civil and respectful than the other.

"Way too much divisiveness"

Tony Messenger at "My Obama moment" said:

"There's way too much divisiveness in our political discussion these days."

Gee, I wonder if it's coming "From the Right" or "From the Left?" Maybe "Ozarks Right" or "Ozarks Left" can tell us.

(snicker)

Respect returns to Missouri Catholic Bishops

...as they display "courage and compassion."

I am so pleased to see that the editorial page editor of the News-Leader has mended fences with Missouri Catholic Bishops and is no longer questioning their motives. See: Bishops' letter on immigrants changes debate (here's an excerpt):

"Missouri Catholic bishops changed the nature* of the debate about illegal immigration in this state this week by sending a passionate letter* to the governor and lawmakers urging the politicians to stop their pandering attempts to look tough on immigration.

We offer a resounding "Amen!" to the bishops for their courage and compassion."*

That's much better than the time the editorial editor questioned their motives when they came out in support of tax credits for benevolent contributors to the Betty L.Thompson Scholarship Program (failed HB808):

"Other conservative supporters and Catholic schools say the tax credits help build scholarship funds for needy students and offer families more choices. Teachers groups say the vouchers and private-school tax credits take money away from public schools and undermine the education system."

"...what is the true motivation of those trying to get it passed?"*

My guess is that supporting our State's poor students toward more choices for better education took a lot less "courage and compassion" on the part of Missouri Bishops.

Shucks, they were just talking about making tax credits available to benevolent contributors to Scholarships for Children in Failing Urban School Districts (the Betty L.Thompson Scholarship Program) to provide grants for low income parents so they could afford to send their children to the school of their choice, the school they educated themselves about and chose as one that could provide a better education to their failing child and heck, it could've even been a public school they chose. Shhh, let's not mention there were no vouchers (the tax credited scholarship program didn't quack like a duck and it didn't walk like a duck).

I'm just thankful that the News-Leader's editorial board has returned to an attitude of respect regarding opinions of Missouri Catholic Bishops. Aren't you?

*emphasis mine

"...we believe the city could improve," Spokeswoman for the Missouri State Auditor's Office said

Wes Johnson quoted the spokeswoman for the Missouri State Auditor's Office, Samantha Brewer, in State to unveil Springfield audit:

"The audit has recommendations in areas where we believe the city could improve," Brewer said. "We don't have enforcement powers. We cannot make the city implement the recommendations contained in the audit. That part is up to the citizens who need to go to meetings and make the city respond to them."

Wouldn't it be awesome if more citizens of Springfield would go to meetings and "make the city respond to them?"

I notice there are some in the blogosphere and elsewhere who would have you look to them to disseminate information gathered at meetings. Nah, you don't have to be there, this one or that one will take care of your civic responsibility so you don't have to.

Certainly, it is nice to read news articles and reports about what transpired at this meeting or that meeting. It's nice to read this blogger or that blogger's take on events but if I could do anything through this blog it would be to somehow encourage citizens to show up in person. You don't have to be there? No, no one is going to make you take an interest in getting your information first hand. Someone else will always be happy to tell you the high points from their vantage point if that's what you want. Will you be more sympathetic to the opinion of Tony Messenger, Vincent David Jericho or a smorgasbord of bloggers and reporters who will comment on the report? Will you read everything written and then decide based on what was important to this person or that person from their vantage point? Will you trust others with that information gathering for you?

As a person who has attended many meetings involving City Council I can tell you that you don't get all the information shared at any given meeting. Reporters, journalists, radio talk show hosts and bloggers pick and choose what they will include in the discussion, it isn't necessarily intentional, it's just that space and air time is limited.

Sometimes you miss some of the quirky facts because there simply isn't room or air time to include everything. Those to whom you hand over responsibility to inform you can't possibly tell you every minute detail of every meeting. So, I would encourage people to attend every meeting they can attend, realizing it isn't likely anyone can attend all of them. I don't get to attend every meeting in the city either, but we could all do better with Samantha Brewer's charge to "go to meetings and make the city respond to them."

Reminder: Vincent David Jericho will be interviewing State Auditor Susan Montee tomorrow morning (Friday) on KSGF.

The audit report will be heard at City Council chambers tonight at 7:00 p.m. The address is 830 Boonville Avenue.

Yes, it IS called a free press!

At The Rhetorica Network on Media/Political bias, Andy Cline wrote:

"There is no such thing as an objective point of view.

No matter how much we may try to ignore it, human communication always takes place in a context, through a medium, and among individuals and groups who are situated historically, politically, economically, and socially. This state of affairs is neither bad nor good. It simply is. Bias is a small word that identifies the collective influences of the entire context of a message...."

Cline continues:

"Journalists, too, speak from political positions but usually not overtly so. The journalistic ethics of objectivity and fairness are strong influences on the profession. But journalistic objectivity is not the pristine objectivity of philosophy. Instead, a journalist attempts to be objective by two methods: 1) fairness to those concerned with the news and 2) a professional process of information gathering that seeks fairness, completeness, and accuracy. As we all know, the ethical heights journalists set for themselves are not always reached. But, all in all, like politics, it is an honorable profession practiced, for the most part, by people trying to do the right thing...."

So, when a blogger at the News-Leader.com Community Blogs - Ozarks Right wrote he was:

"...amazed that a citizen would criticize a news organization for ferreting out a story on violations of a SUNSHINE LAW..."

I had to wonder why and question whether he might have missed the point, entirely. I don't know that he was speaking of me when he talked about "a citizen" but I seemed to be among few (maybe the only) questioning why Tony Messenger, the Editorial Page Editor of The Springfield News-Leader has seemed so intent on taking Eckersley's side when the latter claimed he was fired for calling attention to the Governor's email retention policy. I've never questioned or objected to any "news organization for ferreting out a story" on any subject, let alone a story on violations of the Missouri Sunshine Law.

In fact, David Burtond, member of the Missouri Press Association, Southwest Missouri Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, Ozarks Press Association and the International Society of Weekly Newspaper Editors recently wrote, Journalists Should Expose Unethical Practices of Others in the News Media. Burtond was citing The Society of Professional Journalist's Code of Ethics. He wrote:

"Right under the heading of "be accountable," the code says journalists should "expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.""

From Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics (this is not a complete list, I selected from it to make a point but, please, do follow the link to read the entire list):

--Deliberate distortion is never permissible.Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.
--Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
--Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story
--Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
--Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.
--Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
--Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
--Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.
--Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.

Certainly, the first amendment to the constitution reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And, I'm not formally announcing that I would like to take David Burtond's charge of holding local media accountable for perceptions of ethical violation and I should point out that The Society for Professional Journalists code of ethics is followed voluntarily by members of the media, they are not required to follow it.

The readers of Messenger's combined articles, columns and blog entries on the Eckersley/Blunt administration/Sunshine Law affair can decide whether his writings have been entirely ethical or not but certainly, I have a right, and some might even say an obligation to consider and question that aspect of the coverage.

Messenger continues to seek the truth...

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Sunshine law policy on email retention needs Attorney General's clarification

I'm beginning to think there may be something to Tony Messenger's fuss about his email request regarding "Martin's attempts to rally pro-life groups to urge Attorney General Jay Nixon's removal from a case defending a new abortion law." But it still isn't a settled issue.

I'm always willing to accept fact and accept the truth and I also recognize that there are some things about the Sunshine Law that I don't understand (in fact, maybe that no one understands). That doesn't change anything in regards to Eckersley's charge that he was fired for calling attention to email retention, in my opinion, but, in fairness, Messenger's questions regarding his original request for an email from Martin are legitimate.

Last Sunday, November 4, Messenger laid out how often the Governor's position has changed (a characterization I am uncomfortable with), here:

He quoted an AP story:

"Here's an Associated Press account of the changing opinions coming out of the governor's office:

"Blunt has offered varying explanations for his office's handling of e-mail records. In one interview, he said that 'nobody saves e-mails for three years.' In another, he said his office has no written policy on e-mail retention but merely follows the Sunshine Law. In yet another, Blunt acknowledged using 'four or five' e-mail accounts and deleting some messages to avoid an overflowing inbox.""

I could word parse a little here, for instance, was Blunt saying that nobody saves ALL their emails for three years or was he saying that nobody saves ANY emails for three years? That's not really clear.

The AP, in the portion of the story Tony quoted, quotes Blunt and stays with the facts of what is known about Blunt's "position," Tony hasn't always done that and that has been of as much interest to me as the actual story. I think if you follow what I have written in the past you will recognize that. My questions have been, for the most part, about how far an editorialist should go in drawing conclusions and taking a side BEFORE all the facts are out and the truth is apparent.

Case in point, in the same column last Sunday Messenger wrote:

"Herschel tries to suggest that reporters should be more interested in the attorney general's office and how it handles e-mails. He takes issue with how Eckersley has characterized his firing. And he offers yet the latest in changing explanations for how the governor views retention of e-mails."

He was referring to a portion of a letter Herschel wrote :

"...with respect to e-mails, our retention policy is similar to and perhaps superior to that of the attorney general's office: e-mails that are not public records are retained; some that are not public records are not retained; others that are not public records are retained. Paper documents and digital documents are treated under the same standard. (Attorney General Nixon's spokesman told The Associated Press on September 24, 2007, that the attorney general's office routinely deletes e-mails that are not public records. This is common practice.)"

You see, I question whether Herschel tried "to suggest that reporters should be more interested in the attorney general's office and how it handles e-mails?"

I don't see any "suggest(ion)" that reporters should be more interested in the attorney general's office and how it handles email than in the Governor's retention policy. This is where I take issue with Messenger. His over-exuberant excitement over assuming that he knows the motives behind statements made by the Governor and/or his administration. Certainly, as an editorial writer he will do so but it is his obvious excitement at finding an "AHA!" moment with the Governor's office on this issue that has been tedious and debatable in almost every instance. I question his analytic abilities to conclude the motives and intentions of others without asking and I always have.

Regarding Messenger's statement:

"He (Herschel) takes issue with how Eckersley has characterized his firing."

Herschel wrote:

"He (Eckersley) now claims he was fired over the Sunshine law. There is nothing that supports his assertion, and we only released documents supporting the true reason for his dismissal after he made false claims to the media."

Herschel is correct, Eckersley is claiming he was fired over the Sunshine law and there really hasn't been anything that supports that assertion. It sorta galls me that every single time the Governor or his administration has offered further elaboration on their policy, which has been identified as "to follow the Sunshine law" that they've been charged with changing their story. I don't view it so much as a "change" of their position as an elaboration on their policy.

For instance, their policy is to follow the Sunshine Law. Herschel, same letter, wrote:

"So you will know our policy, it is to meet fully the disclosure standards of the relevant statute (the "Sunshine Law," Chap. 610 et seq RSMo). Our policy is provided to employees at Section 5.11 of the office manual. Further, the policy is consistent with the recommended practices of the Secretary of State."

How is this a change? "Our policy is "X" and "X" is provided to employees as a part of the office manual. "X" is consistent with the recommended practices of the Secretary of State." Clarification for the record, not an attempt to change their position, in my opinion. It's true that Blunt stated "there is no policy," but it is also true that he QUICKLY followed that statement with "Our policy is the Sunshine law."

Don't get me wrong, I think there is legitimacy in Messenger's questions:

"Why were Martin's e-mails deleted? Was that a violation of the state's e-mail retention policy?"

But I can't agree with Tony that there is "no doubt" that deleting emails regarding "Martin's attempts to rally pro-life groups to urge Attorney General Jay Nixon's removal from a case defending a new abortion law," was a violation of the state's email retention policy. I don't think that's a settled issue but I am leaning a little more toward Messenger's assumption.

Tony wrote:

"The bottom line is this: I'm seeking the truth, governor. Are you?"

He's already implied that the Governor is NOT seeking the truth. He wrote here :

"The bottom line is the same as it always is: Taxpayers deserve the truth.

When it comes to the Sunshine Law, Scott Eckersley told it.

The governor's office has not."

On Tuesday, November 6, Messenger wrote under "Another Herschel letter,":

"that e-mail was deleted and not provided in accordance with the Sunshine Law (which is not in dispute)."

Email retention policy simply hasn't been settled, in my opinion, and if Messenger spent more time trying to get to the bottom of that and see that it is settled instead of seeming to be so exited about pouncing on the Governor and his administration for unproven charges this whole episode would be easier for me to stomach.

Then in "AP: Memo backs Eckersley," Messenger quoted an AP story. Excerpts of that AP story:

"The memo also pointed out that Blunt himself signed a record retention policy in 2001 when he was secretary of state that said state agencies must retain for three years records, including “all general communication.”’ The e-mail stated an updated retention policy kept that requirement. The memo used all capital letters to emphasize that e-mails are considered public under the Missouri Sunshine Law because the statute covers any document “written or ELECTRONICALLY STORED, retained by or of any public governmental body.” The memo is not clear-cut in its stance that e-mails are public documents. It says not every e-mail is automatically public because the Sunshine Law excludes letters or documents that a government agency receives, but does not retain...."

"...The memo says the reporter is in error to assume specific e-mails mentioned in the article are public. The memo also suggests a way Blunt can handle the story as a campaign issue against Attorney General Jay Nixon, Blunt’s presumed Democratic rival in the 2008 governor’s race. “If we want to attack the AG on this we should not ask the post-dispatch why they have not requested letters from Nixon, we should ask Nixon to clarify the retention schedule as one of the members of the commission that created it,” the memo says...."

"...It was sent to two people, including a Blunt aide. It is not clear if any of the recipients passed the memo on to Blunt, his chief of staff Ed Martin or anyone else in Blunt’s office. Eckersley said he wouldn’t comment directly on the memo, citing attorney-client privilege. He repeated his claim that he sent
several memos like it, and said they all made the same argument. He said the memos went to Martin, Chrismer and legal counsel Henry Herschel. Blunt officials have repeatedly denied that claim. On Oct. 30, Blunt’s chief counsel for the Office of Administration, Rich AuBuchon, told the AP: “Mr. Eckersley never once voiced a concern, never once wrote an e-mail, never once talked to other employees in the office evidencing any concern that the governor’s office was not complying with the Sunshine Law or any record retention policies.” On Friday, Chrismer reiterated that Blunt’s office has “no record that Scott Eckersley ever wrote or stated that the practices of our office were inconsistent with any law or standard on record retention and I cannot comment on a document that any news outlet has so little confidence in that it will not provide it to me....”

It seems to me that Eckersley's advice that "we should ask Nixon to clarify the retention schedule as one of the members of the commission that created it," was good advice and that there still is no proof of Eckersley's claim that he was fired for advising the Governor's office on their email retention policy. I'm still just trying to stick to the facts as they are known and as willing to accept the truth as ever.

Note: All emphasis mine

Journalistic Integrity

Lacking in the press vs the Blunt administration fiasco regarding Scott Eckersley's firing

I have been trying to follow the complicated issue which, in my opinion, was trumped up against Governor Blunt and his administration regarding the Scott Eckersley firing. It started out as what should have been a simple question about which government emails fall under the Missouri Sunshine Law and which emails do not. In my opinion it has been complicated by certain journalists who have spread around gossip rather than reporting fact and who appear to have taken sides on the issue, propping up one party while disparaging the other based on their own gossip. You can follow most of the exchange I have had at the News-Leader forum in the comment section found under this article if you're interested in the discussion. This was my last entry, it was made to fellow commenter "TsTwkT":

""The documentation they have shows it was deactivated on 9/25. There's no time delay for it to kick in and the documentation was provided by the technology company."

Have you seen that documentation, TsTwkT? I'd like to see that documentation. Where might I access it? Further, where do you come by your information that "there's no time delay for it to kick in?"

Then the next obvious question would be, does the Blunt administration have the right to access a state computer used by a state employee in their own administration after he is fired?

Eckersley was an employee of the Blunt administration, the computer he used on the job was not his own. Does his employer have the right to access information stored in that state owned computer? To what degree?

Taking it out of the political realm, if you use a computer supplied by your employer at your office do you have the right to limit your employer's access to their computer should you either quit or be fired from that company? I would think that your employer would have free reign to examine their own computer, especially if, after you were fired you had challenged their reasons given for firing you in a public forum.

I think the difference between myself and some people is that I'm just not willing to jump to conclusions and I certainly don't mean to suggest I have all the answers. I just think that there are some questions that aren't being asked. Some pretty serious charges are being leveled at the Governor's office and many of them are based on rumor. This isn't the only issue that such rumored charges have been made, nor the only party that has had rumored charges leveled without any real, tangible proof of wrong doing. I suppose my question is a broader one than about Eckersley vs the Governor's office and it really has been from the start. The broader question is about certain members of the press VS the Governor's administration. How far should editorialists go in making charges without supporting them in the press? Where is the line and when is it crossed? It's a sort of a moral issue for me, I suppose.

Now, I've got other business to be about and to be honest, this issue has merely served as a bit of a diversion for me during a difficult time. When more evidence to support some of the rumors comes out I might revisit it. Oh, and I would like the links to that evidence you have alluded to from the "technology company."

Some members of the blogosphere bowed out of the discussion some time ago because they, apparently, tired of the gossip based on nothing but he said/he said. I can't say that I blame them.

For me it's been a diversion to get my mind off of the sad situation I have been going through with my Mother. She had her surgery yesterday. She lost her right leg just above the knee. This issue was something just complicated enough to allow me to occupy my mind for a few moments here and there and try to maintain a bit of sanity. But, I think it's pretty much run its course.

I want to thank all of those who have been praying for my Mother. She has some hard work ahead and continued prayer for her and my family is still appreciated.

Hey, the peanut gallery needs to apply for volunteer service on the City Manager Search Committee!

Council Bill 2007-351 qualifies as an item of interest. It's a resolution to formulate the process for establishing a Search Committee for the hiring of a new City Manager. It states, in part:

"Whereas, it has been determined that a Search Committee which will consist of representatives from a cross section of the community will be established, and Mayor Pro Tem Gary Deaver will Chair this Committee; and

Whereas, there may be other members of City Council that desire to be involved in establishing the criteria for the Search Committee, and in determining its makeup.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI as follows:

That Mayor Pro Tem Gary Deaver and members of the City Council desiring to do so, shall meet and establish the process for selecting members of the Search Committee.Additionally, they should develop the process they wish the Search Committee to follow in selecting candidates for the City Manager position. This selection process shall be presented to City Council for formal approval within thirty days of the passage of this resolution.

Be it further resolved that following the formal approval of the selection process, citizens interested in serving on the Search Committee shall file a Volunteer Service Application with the City Clerk. All applications received by the deadline established by the process, will be considered for appointment to the Committee. The names of those being recommended to serve on the Selection Committee shall be submitted to the City Council for final approval, not more than thirty days following the deadline."

Under remarks the bill states:

"Mayor Tom Carlson has indicated that he would like to follow the process that was following when Missouri State University was looking ot hire a new President. That process was the establishment of a Search Committee that was comprised of members of the Board of Governors, alumni, faculty, staff, and students. This approach provided representation from a wide range of perspectives."

I hope they do not forget to include representatives of the peanut gallery on the Search Committee. I know peanut gallerians do not always have "real money at risk, time, money, and effort to spend,"* but they deserve representation as much as anybody else. And please, do not forget conspiracy theorists, you never know, Tony Messenger might want to file an application. Oh, my, I wonder if the applications will be subject to the Sunshine Law? That could open a whole new can of worms! ;)

*source: Mayor Tom Carlson

Email, email, who's got the email?

Rumors continue swirling around the Scott Eckersley firing

Jo Mannies of The Post-Dispatch claims to have an email:

"dated Sept. 14, in which Eckersley lays out to a co-worker what he says should be the response of Blunt staffers when asked by reporters about the handling of office e-mails."

The Post-Dispatch did not provide access to that email to the public. Instead they are polling readers as to whether they believe Governor Blunt's office is obeying the law regarding emails.

Tim Hoover of the Kansas City Star reported there is an email that proves Eckersley had advised the Blunt administration about email retention but that Eckersley's attorney didn't release it. He was concerned about attorney-client privilege.

Tony Messenger of The Springfield News-Leader claims the story has legs because the Dispatch and the KC Star have picked it up. All three sources cite an email they apparently have in possession that Eckersley claims supports his allegation that he had sent emails to Blunt officials informing them of email retention policy. None of them have posted that actual email for readers to examine. In fact, and as admitted by Messenger (see: The evidence is adding up) that email proves nothing.

Messenger links an Agency Records Disposition Schedule circa 2001 from the Office of the Governor signed by the Agency Director, Carol Gilotrap. The Agency Records Disposition Schedule was approved by then Chairman of the State Records Commission, Matt Blunt on October 25, 2001. Messenger identifies this document as "the Governor's email retention policy." Mannies only cites "a separate state law" and does not link it. I wonder if policies held by one Office of the Governor are carried over to the next Office of the Governor or if each Governor is responsible for his own office's policy? Messenger seems to be using the document as proof that the Governor lied when earlier this week he said:

"Our policy is to follow the Sunshine Law, that's the policy."

Blunt said:

"The Sunshine Law provides lots of information about that (what qualifies an email for retention), it differentiates and is very specific about what is and is not a public record."

Messenger also, in "The story has legs" at his blog, wonders whether that law was rescinded by the Governor but didn't bother to confirm whether it had been or not. Messenger claims that Blunt "doesn't really want to say that," as though he is privy to what Governor Blunt either wants or does not want.

Here is what the Missouri Sunshine Law says about electronic records:

The Sunshine Law encourages public governmental bodies to maintain records in electronic formats that are accessible to the public (Section 610.029.1). Public governmental bodies are obligated to provide records in the format requested, if available (Section 610.023.3). However, when a requester demands records in a format beyond the scope of staff expertise, a body may charge for the actual rate of programming necessary to comply with the request (Section 610.026.1(2)).

Section 610.025 requires that certain e-mails sent by members of a public body be copied to the custodian or that member's public office computer. It is triggered when a member of a public body sends an electronic message dealing with public business to two or more members so that, when counting the sender, a majority of the body's members are copied on the message. Once transmitted to the custodian or the member's public office computer, the e-mail is an open record, unless it is subject to an exception in Section 610.021.*

Now, in the case of Messenger's original request, the request that started this whole affair seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle. Something to do with a member of the Blunt administration trying to rally support from a group OUTSIDE the Governor's office to request their promotion of a certain related policy or something? If so, according to what I just posted from the Sunshine Law, that action would NOT have triggered the copying of the electronic message to the custodian of public records because it wasn't sent to a majority of the body's members. So, while being used for possible partisan reasons it wouldn't be considered something that should be kept in public records or something the public would necessarily be interested in, UNLESS you happen to be a fervent editorial journalist bent on smearing the Governor's administration by casting undue doubt on whether they should be emailing an outside activist group from their state computer at taxpayer's expense. I hope I'm remembering this correctly, I could not find where the News-Leader website references Tony's original "controversy" over not being allowed these email messages. In fact, I can't even remember who was involved, but then since Messenger is not required to verify or substantiate his claims and allegations then why should I? I mean, I'm just a blogger, he's the editorial editor of the city's leading newspaper.

*emphasis mine

The evidence is adding up

Tony Messenger of the Springfield News-Leader likes to call Republicans liars

In Messenger's new column, E-mails released by state show Eckersley case has most merit, he continues to try to support his conclusion that the Governor's office is lying:

"The bottom line is the same as it always is: Taxpayers deserve the truth.

When it comes to the Sunshine Law, Scott Eckersley told it.

The governor's office has not."

Messenger points to an email written by Eckersley on September 20 to Jonathan Bunch, a former Blunt employee. The email was included in a packet sent to reporters by state attorney Rich Aubuchon.

Messenger has included links to other pertinent information but does not include a link for the reader to view the email written to Jonathan Bunch. Why? Because it doesn't prove anything anyway and Messenger knows that. The email, according to Messenger includes this line from Eckersley:

"Wow ... I fired on people yesterday about that — I just got so sick of it — I emailed Chrismer and HH and ed."

Then Messenger admits:

"That Eckersley says he e-mailed Blunt spokesman Rich Chrismer, HH (probably attorney Henry Herschel) and ed (likely chief of staff Ed Martin) proves nothing, of course."*

I'll trust the reader to decide whether the evidence Messenger claims to have is enough to flat out make the statement that the governor's office employs a bunch of liars or not.

This blogger feels that "the evidence is adding up" that Tony Messenger enjoys calling Republicans liars, should I consider it as not warranting a leap of faith to make that statement? Hmmmm.

* Emphasis mine.

Editorial bias

One wonders why the story, Fired Blunt attorney offered to keep quiet, is published under the "Ozarks local news" section of the Springfield News-Leader today. The Associated Press story reports:

"An attorney who claims Gov. Matt Blunt fired him for disagreeing with the office's e-mail deletion practices said Wednesday that he would have kept quiet if Blunt's friends had helped him find another job...."

"Eckersley said he had remained silent for a month after his firing because a private attorney working on his behalf had attempted to negotiate a deal with Blunt's administration. Under the proposed arrangement, Eckersley said he would have remained silent and not pursued a lawsuit if he would have received a letter of recommendation and a job, preferably with Mitt Romney's presidential campaign...."

"Republican Party Executive Director Jarad Craighead claims Eckersley attempted to extort a job in exchange for his silence...."

"Craighead said he never contacted the Romney campaign on Eckersley's behalf because he didn't feel comfortable recommending him for the job.

"Essentially, they were trying to extort a position for Scott out of the Republican Party, out of the governor," Craighead said. "It was very clear, 'Hey, this can all go away if you give this kid a job."

I just find it interesting that this story finds its place alongside such topics as "Fall foliage may be near its peak," "Safe party for spooky night," and "Scarcity of hay bales leading to concerns over cattle," while the listing of "related news from the web" at the paper's website are "Mitt Romney" and "US News." Eckersley and the state Governor's administration is Ozarks "local" news?

What is the impact of this "local" story on recent editorials that clearly take the side of Eckersley in alleging the Blunt administration fired him because he tried to counsel them regarding the charge that the governor's office wasn't complying with their own policy regarding the retention of emails as public records?

Does it make any difference to journalists who had sided with Eckersley that the sun might not have shone on Eckersley's discontent if Eckersley had received a job recommendation for the Romney campaign? Apparently not.

Placing this story in the Ozarks local news section of the paper gives the appearance that the paper is trying to lessen attention from the public to this aspect of the story. The only thing "local" about it was/is that a "local" editorial editor of the News-Leader chose a side in his coverage.

I guess I just can't understand why Eckersley's word seemed to be given so much more credence by Tony Messenger than various members of the Blunt administration's word. Rather than stepping back and reporting events as they have unfolded there seemed to be a readiness on the part of some to pick a side and support it, as if it was a foregone conclusion that those in the Blunt administration were/are simply liars and Eckersley's word was above reproach, there was little question raised, locally, about the credibility of Eckersley and how reliable this disgruntled, fired employee's word really was, or is.

Messenger wrote today:

"This story never had to be public. Depending on how you interpret Jared Craighead comments, this is either more evidence that Eckersley was doing everything he could to make the story go away, or it might in some respects make Eckersley look bad for trying to "extort" a job.

None of that matters in the big picture of course."

Sorry, I don't buy it. Credibility does matter. Is Tony trying to make excuses for his approach to covering this issue? According to Messenger what matters is:

"...our governor's office horribly botching a personnel situation and using taxpayer dollars to coordinate a campaign to discredit one individual, AND continue to refuse to follow the state Sunshine Law that allows for accountability in these situations."

Just because he says so.

The Sunshine law should be respected by the Governor's office, the Governor's administration and the people who work within it, that much we know.

Blogger Note: excerpts from AP story purposely one sided to make an editorial point.

A proud apologist for "the peanut gallery"

All is well in the City of Springfield, Missouri. Rick Baier of BC Development said nothing to embarrass the City and everything to protect BC Development and Rick Baier. He's one of those "very sophisticated people," that Mayor Carlson spoke about, remember?

The fact is, the City got a better deal than they could have gotten (or would get if they reopened the process), just as Carlson said when he spoke at the Council luncheon meeting on October 16:

"...this community is now looking at getting $7 million for something that they could have gotten a heck of a lot less for."

There are members of staff who are celebrating tonight and who will fall into bed later, pull the covers up to their necks and fall off to sleep in blissful peace.

After the flak Mayor Carlson took over his statement about the "peanut gallery," he and Mary Collette made a point to express how pleased they were when a citizen offered critical remarks about the shortfall the city will take in paying off the parking garage that Hammons will soon own and control.

Collette, not long ago, allowed citizens 2 minutes to tell why they opposed the container ordinance and an additional 3 minutes if they had something constructive to say. She told citizens at that special Community Involvement Committee meeting:

"As Chair of this committee, we don’t even always take public comment but I just want you to know that we want to hear from each and every one of you, well, maybe not."

It was nice to see them making an effort to let the public know their comments are welcome. We can hope it was sincere.

But, back to Baier of BC Development, I told my husband over a week ago that I could see two choices for Rick Baier. He could come to the defense of Becky Spence and take on the City of Springfield or he could fire her and throw her under the bus. I didn't understand at the time that Spence was not a partner with BC Development, rather just an associate that BC Development was working with locally on this deal if they should win the bid for land at the former arena site. I'm going to guess that while Baier doesn't need to fire Spence under the circumstances, that he will likely not look to do business with her in the future. I think we should keep in mind that it is in the best interest of Rick Baier to play nice, not simply because he might want to work a future deal with the City of Springfield but because he might like to work future deals with other city governments in Missouri, city governments who have contact at meetings and events with other Missouri state muncipalities. You don't become a "sophisticated person with money to risk" by airing your dirty laundry in public.

Just as in the case of the Heer's deal the city had no choice on this deal and they really SHOULD be thanking their lucky stars they got the deal they got.

David Queen, the Attorney who worked with Mary Lilly Smith in the negotiations of term sheets between Hammons and HCW Evergreen said that the city could go through this process as many times as they wanted to, there was no limit to how many times they could restart the process, but now that all the cards are on the table, now that it is on record that Hammons is the ONLY developer that could make the deal work because of his exclusive right to food and beverage sales, his ownership of the 90' easement and his side deal with Opus to build new offices for BKD on a piece of Hammon's property, the city would NEVER be able to negotiate $7 million if this were reopened for bids again. This is the deal the city has and it's much better than it could have been.

Hammons, in his exclusive interview with KSPR after the luncheon meeting on October 16 made it pretty clear that he didn't much like the idea of building a hotel on the site, that he had concerns about Branson's new airport and the amenities they offer in Branson.

There are a lot of people who will likely be calling on Vincent David Jericho for an apology but I won't be one of them. I think he deserves a big thank you. It's my opinion that Vince has been good for the process. The business of the City of Springfield needs attention and input from its citizens.

If a dull, dry, timid, radio talk show host droned sweetly to his listeners,

"You should go to City Council meetings and stay involved in the process,"

...how many people do you think would have jumped through hoops to attend a Council meeting? How many people would be watching City government and City Council if Vince didn't "go over the wall?"

I don't care if you like Vincent David Jericho or not, I don't care if you like his methods or not, he's made and he's making changes in communications in our city and our community and regardless of whether Becky Spence took him for a ride or not, how many people in this city would be paying attention, be engaged and interested in city government if it weren't for him?

Just like everyone in the opinion business, sometimes you're going to be right and sometimes you're going to be wrong, Vince will be right and Vince will be wrong but even when he's wrong he's still right about one thing, citizens need to pay attention to their government and sometimes, once in a great while (and in the domain of radio talk) maybe the end justifies the means.

So, sure, beat the heck out of Vince if you want to, that's every person's perogative, just be careful, unless you never make a mistake yourself. I'm still a commoner and I still believe in the peanut gallery, my favorite guy is still the little guy and I'd still "bet" on him, not because he's "sophisticated," not because he's got "real money at risk," but because the little guy's opinion matters too. No one should be disparaged unfairly. Everyone deserves respect and if you think Vincent David Jericho hasn't invested his time and put his money where his mouth is in this community then you haven't been paying attention.

If, as a couple of City Council members said tonight, they are happy to hear from the citizens of Springfield, Missouri they should be thanking Vincent David Jericho. They are hearing from many more citizens than they used to hear from and we all know why.

Look, we shouldn't be about the city government vs the citizens of Springfield or the citizens of Springfield vs the city government. When, at all possible, we can give accolades to our city government for doing something right, then we should. Of course we'll always be able to find things that could have been done better. The city is right that they'll never work a deal or pass a bill or resolution that everyone in the city is happy with but if we all pay attention and we all work together then perhaps we can communicate ourselves to a time in the future when we can all celebrate together and isn't that what we all really want? We want good government. The city is saying it wants input from its citizens. Everyone should keep giving that input, not just the people that agree with what the city is doing but also those that disagree, and as Tony Messenger said in a recent column:

"...The best roads laid by government, in my book, are bumpy ones with lots of twists and turns. But we drive there together, like a big family squeezed into a station wagon going on a long summer vacation.

Sure, we'll fight and squirm and lash out at each other every now and then, but that's just part of the fun."

Contention and disagreement are not a bad thing, they are healthy when they are seen through to the end, the end being true communication and understanding.

I think Vincent David Jericho should keep doing his job, city staff should keep doing their jobs, City Council should keep doing theirs and as a citizen of Springfield you need to be doing yours.

Later, we're going to be looking at the statements Baier has made for consistency. I think that'll be interesting too. :)

Ya'll have a good night. Some of you can eat your peanuts now, those that didn't leave them in the seats at City Council Chambers. ;)

Tony Messenger agrees with conspiracy theorists, joins the peanut gallery

Yesterday, October 17, 2007, Tony Messenger wrote at his blog (see caption: "The Hammons deal ..."):

"So I ran into Mayor Tom Carlson over coffee yesterday and he was already preparing for whatever criticism might come his way over the deal announced between the city and John Q. Hammons over the new convention center hotel. Indeed, if you read the comments after the news story today on the topic, you'll see the conspiracy theorists are out in full force.*

Today, he wrote in an unsigned editorial (trust me, he wrote it...or if he wants to deny it, that's fine, the News Leader is welcome to start requiring their writers to sign "Our Voice" columns instead of providing an apron string for writers to hang onto as they hide behind the Gannett name as if they are the (editorial) legs of a mama a little boy peeks out from behind).

Messenger wrote today, October 18, 2007:

"The problem with the city's process is that it adds fuel to the fire to those critics who believe this was never an open competition from the beginning. If, in fact, the city's logic holds true that the TIF process had to be reopened because of major changes to the scope of the deal, then why isn't the process being reopened again? Now the deal has totally changed, with BKD entering into a private agreement to build its office building on property Hammons owns. So the proposals that were sought seeking both an office building and hotel no longer apply.

The lesson for the city is that process matters. The city sends mixed signals when on one hand it says "Hammons has paid his dues" — as city attorney Dan Wichmer recently stated in defending negotiations with the developer — and on the other hand argues that the process has been an open and fair competition.

Hammons has controlled the process from the beginning, not because he's done anything nefarious, but because he holds all the cards. Because of previous deals with the city, he holds the contract to manage the Expo Center. He owns the land surrounding the site. He is the landlord of the company looking to relocate. In a nutshell, none of the other developers had a chance.

If this process proves anything, it's the truth spoken by a couple of city officials at the most recent council meeting — this is, that the city is not very good at development.

The City Council should approve this deal because it moves downtown forward and improves the city's debt and budget situation. But this chapter in the city's history should also send a clear signal that it's time to leave development to the experts."

I'm wondering, these people Tony has called "the conspiracy theorists," are they kind of like the people Mayor Carlson called "the people from the peanut gallery?" And hasn't Tony, peering from behind the News Leader's legs, written pretty much what "the people from the peanut gallery, the conspiracy theorists," have been fussing about all along...ah, that's different?

Further, what about his advice of last week, when he wrote:

"Focus on the issues, people. Leave the name-calling to children on the playground."

Does identifying people as "the conspiracy theorists" qualify as name calling?

Tony, Tony, Tony, I warned you last week to take your own advice. Now, you've joined the patrons of "the peanut gallery." Now, you've gone and put your stamp of approval on what "the conspiracy theorists" have been saying all along, yet for some reason we are all to believe that it's "conspiratorial" when expressed by the common man (or a certain radio talk show host ) but valid and legitimate opinion when expressed by the Editorial Page Editor of the News-Leader? Very, very interesting.

When you wrote:

"If this process proves anything, it's the truth spoken by a couple of city officials at the most recent council meeting — this is, that the city is not very good at development."

and when you wrote:

"...this chapter in the city's history should also send a clear signal that it's time to leave development to the experts."

You are saying the same thing that others who have said city staff is incompetent when it comes to negotiating deals with developers have said...the only difference? You didn't put your name on it. You are the Editorial Page Editor of the city's leading newspaper as opposed to a "conspiracy theorist" or a person in "the peanut gallery." I'll also note that you are happy to report that "the city is not very good at development," when it comes from the mouths of "a couple of city officials at the most recent council meeting" but others who have offered the same opinion, instead of being worthy of a nod? Conspiracy theorists?

Now you are asking the questions that "the conspiracy theorists," and patrons of "the peanut gallery" have been asking and making the same statements they've been making all along (as highlighted above).

Sorry, I'll place my bet, any day of the week I'll bet on people from the peanut gallery who are willing to put their names behind their words and are willing to risk time, reputation and persecution over those who call names but then agree with them in unsigned "Our Voice" columns at the city's leading newspaper.

Now, Tony, in your next unsigned column would you mind asking the city if they made Hammon's competitors aware of Hammon's control over the process before they wasted their "real money, their time, money and effort," on a process in which Hammons held all the cards? At what point did the city know that BKD was not interested in sharing their offices in a multi-use facility? Before or after they insisted developers include them in their proposals? Before they strung other developers along or after?

Was it proper process to not inform the other developers that JQ Hammons owned exclusive rights to food and beverage sales at the expo center until after they had invested their real money, their time, money and effort on proposing a multi-use facility that required a tenant who wanted no part of the facility?

Could the city have strung the other developers along to make it APPEAR to the peanut gallery and conspiracy theorists that the process was open for bid, knowing full well that the other developers didn't have a chance because the chips were stacked against them?

Did the city take advantage of the other developers in order to negotiate a deal with Hammons, causing them to waste their real money, their time, money and effort in issuing proposals the city knew they couldn't possibly compete with Hammons to win? If so, will any of these developers be willing to invest that real money, time and effort on future proposals? Will they return to their home cities and talk with other developers from behind their hands about how the city of Springfield jerked them around, causing other developers to refrain from dealing with the city of Springfield?

Is this sort of dealing in the best interest of the community? Is the council making the best decisions on behalf of the peanut gallery?

And then, answer this question, humor me, what's the difference between a "conspiracy theorist," radio talk show host, blogger or citizen journalist and an Editorial Page Editor of the News Leader?

*all emphasis, mine.

In response to Tony Messenger's "Can't we all just get along?"

It seems, to me, that Vincent David Jericho did nothing but break the news of the BC Development letter written by Richard Baier, the principal, and offer Becky Spence a platform to tell her side of the story. Because of very real past actions on the part of the city having to do with other developments that didn't turn out well, the trust level toward City government among some members of the community is not at a high point. Has Vince fed into that by discussing some issues that have come up that haven't been discussed anywhere else? Sure, I think so.

Turns out that Spence may not have been a credible source, this is a discredit to Spence but is it a discredit to Vince that he believed a citizen was telling him the truth and in public, and in an open forum we found out that it wasn't true that city government departments told BC Development it was a done deal?

I suppose the entire media could have been very, very quiet about what Spence had to say, not reported on it at all and then this wouldn't have been an issue? No, it was going to be an issue for the simple reason that BC Development's Richard Baier wrote that letter in the first place and the News-Leader ended up publishing that letter (because it was news) and the HCW Evergreen letter as well, both letters are public records and both letters are news. So, is it better that it all got purged in public and the people know what happened here or would it have been better had it been kept quiet, the BC Development letter left to sit and simmer in the imaginations of the public and Becky Spence to have never been exposed as less than credible, leaving room for gossip, speculation and suspicion?

Sarah Overstreet of the News-Leader fairly reported here:

"As Spence addressed the council and council members then asked her questions and made comments about them, some spectators in the audience started to grumble, and you could hear them talking to each other.

The meeting went on fairly peacefully, until Councilman Ralph Manley decided to issue a scolding."

Sarah went on to give the city's

"statute defining "decorum" in a city council meeting:

"No person shall make personal, impertinent or slanderous remarks, or otherwise disturb the order and decorum of any council meeting. The sergeant-at-arms, at the direction of the mayor, shall remove any person violating the provisions of this subsection (b)."

So, it is fair to ask that people follow the law, and people could have waited, though frustrated that night, to see what Vincent David Jericho had to say on the radio the next day, they could have waited to see what local bloggers and the News-Leader reported on it later and held their tongues during the Council meeting, but as for Tony Messenger's rant at his blog? It seems disingenuous, it seems he's talking out of both sides of his mouth when he wrote in his blog entry Can't we all just get along?:

"...The topic's been on my mind a lot this week after Monday's show at the city council where Becky Spence and Vincent David Jericho and various followers filled the council chambers and blasted council members and city staff with no grounds whatsoever. Turns out that Spence's allegations were and are totally unfounded, and the show that a group of citizens put on was nothing but a distraction from the real story, and that's what's so disappointing about such displays. There are real issues to discuss, issues that reasonable people will disagree about, but why can't we do so respectfully?"

Why do I say disingenuous and talking out of both sides of his mouth? Because not so long ago Tony wrote Good debates can sometimes get rowdy :

Roger Chance was the editor and publisher of a small town weekly newspaper that had been in his family for decades.

He drank Old Crow whiskey and Pepsi in a white styrofoam cup. You could tell what time of day it was by the whiff of Roger as he walked by. The more Old Crow, the later it was. Roger kept a bottle in his desk, another one in the press room, one in the darkroom, and others, I'm guessing, in hiding places I never found.

Roger is the kind of guy who would have enjoyed the Springfield City Council meeting last week.The council's been getting beaten up a fair amount lately, but Roger would say that's not a bad thing....

"...On Tuesday night, Roger would leave the offices of the Yuma Pioneer as I stayed behind to put the weekly newspaper to bed, leaving room for a council story — and a righteous editorial, if Roger felt, well, righteous. Roger would take his styrofoam cup with him, and walk the couple of blocks down Main Street to City Hall. And then the fun would begin.

As I hear it (remember, I was back at the office), Roger wouldn't so much take notes as he would get into arguments with various council members over the issues of the day. Sometimes he'd be downright belligerent. Then he'd come back to the office, tell me what happened — his version, at least — and direct me to write a story. Occasionally, he'd sit down at his manual Remington typewriter and pound out an indignant editorial, leaving me to guess how drunk he was when editing out the cuss words the next morning. Sometimes they stayed.

The council put up with this not because Roger bought his ink by the barrel, but because he cared. He was as invested as they were. A little fiery debate was good for the process...."

"...This is serious business," Carlson said, "not something like a ballgame where people cheer and boo."

Roger Chance would disagree. Not that the business is serious, but that cheering and booing is uncalled for. (For the record, I wasn't at the meeting, but unlike my days working for Roger, the wonders of technology allowed me to watch it on tape.)...

"...The best roads laid by government, in my book, are bumpy ones with lots of twists and turns. But we drive there together, like a big family squeezed into a station wagon going on a long summer vacation.

Sure, we'll fight and squirm and lash out at each other every now and then, but that's just part of the fun.

Of course, that might just be the whiskey talking."

Apparently, if you are a friend and collegue of Tony Messenger's your "rowdiness" at a Council meeting is to be treated with sympathy and sentimentality, one gets the impression that not only did Roger Chance, his editor and publisher, disagree but the flavor that Tony sprinkled this blog entry with appears to support Roger Chance's disagreement...now, if you are Vincent David Jericho, a local radio talk show host for which Tony seems to have lost no love, then City Council should be a more "serious" affair and the "rowdy" debate is less than acceptable.

Hmmm.

Sarah made a fair point, Tony made a fair point as well, that is if one didn't know the history and hadn't seen him call proponents of tax credits for private or homeschooled children "liars" because they denied the scholarship monies offered by individuals and offset by tax credits were "vouchers." That is if one hadn't taken a ride on "the short bus" with him in the past. So, Tony...I don't know, tell me where you stand on this issue. I'm a bit confused.

My advice would be you take your own:

"Focus on the issues, people. Leave the name-calling to children on the playground."

Something ventured, nothing gained: Status quo returns to Washington

In Congressional passion gives hope, Springfield News-Leader's Tony Messenger wrote:

"For true change to occur on the state and national level on key issues, it takes Republicans and Democrats working together, not simply using the various issues as great dividers that build one party up while leaving the other in the dust.

Frankly, my hope was that the debate over illegal immigration would lead to the sort of grand compromise that would stand as a testament to our ability to reach across party aisles and work together on complicated issues. That didn't happen, but the fact that the issue, and not the party, was the driving force in this debate is still worth a nugget of hope."

I would argue that true change did occur on a key issue. I would argue that Republicans and Democrats did work together and they worked together all across the country. I would argue that the true hope that was discovered was that the people, as a whole, set aside partisan politics and reached across party aisles to effect the outcome of policy. I would argue that Tony, in his wish to see comprehensive immigration reform passed, failed to see what he wished come to full realization.

People stood up for America rather than political parties! People stood up for what they believed, and stood up passionately, and stood up because they did know what was in the bill, not because (as the News-Leader has implied in the past) they are ignorant, emotional, racist, bigoted, xenophobes! People knew better than the politicians in Washington what was good for the country and could not be denied their voice and when their voices were heard in such large numbers their "representatives" were forced to listen.

We could have a celebration in watching the system work as it should, in true representative fashion, but for the fact that in the end, after the dust has settled the proponents of immigration reform lost and the proponents of border security and law enforcement lost.

When we ask the questions, "What's next? Securing the border so that the American people will be more receptive to the idea of immigration reform in the future?"

We'd be logical to think that securing the border would be next, but that isn't going to happen. That isn't going to happen because just as the American people suspected all along, politicians were just trying to appease us and get us to shut up long enough to pass this legislation.

Nothing much was being done to enforce our immigration laws until the proponents wanted to pass this comprehesive immigration reform bill. Wasn't it convenient that, all of a sudden, when there was the hope of passing this legislation, that there were numerous ICE raids of businesses employing illegal aliens across the country, that there was all this "tough" talk about securing our borders, that there was all this talk about pouring billions of dollars into homeland security coffers to take care of the illegal immigrant problem?

So, you'd think that if border security was so important in the lead up to the debate on comprehensive immigration reform that it would be that important today, right? Uh huh.

President Bush Disappointed by Congress's Failure to Act on Comprehensive Immigration Reform:

Congress really needs to prove to the American people that it can come together on hard issues. The Congress needs to work on comprehensive energy policy and good health care; make sure health care is affordable without inviting the federal government to run the health care system. We've got to work together to make sure we can balance this federal budget, and not overspend or raise taxes on the American people. We've got a lot of work to do.

When they come back from the summer -- from the July recess, before the summer break begins, we'll be focusing on the appropriations process. And I look forward to working with Congress to balance our budgets and to be wise about how we spend the people's money.

Bush is ready to move on. No more talk about how important it is to secure our borders in the interest of national security.

On FOX News Sunday, July 1, Chris Wallace interviewed Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff and I think this excerpt of that interview is telling:

WALLACE: Mr. Secretary, we have about a minute left. Clearly, what came out of this debate and the failure of immigration reform is that a lot of people in this country don't trust you, don't trust the government, to enforce the border.

So why not take the lesson from this failure and go for enforcement first, resubmit the president's agreement to spend $4.4 billion on new enforcement?

You say you don't have some tools when it comes to employer verification. Why not resubmit all of those and challenge the Democrats on enforcement first?

CHERTOFF: Well, Chris, first of all, anybody who says we haven't been enforcing is woefully blind to the facts. We have done more in terms -- and unfortunately, it's been some painful stuff in terms of arrests, 700 criminal cases against employers, raids involving thousands of people, unfortunate pictures of crying children. ...

WALLACE: But, Mr. Secretary, we're running out of...

CHERTOFF:... whose mothers are being...

WALLACE:I don't mean to interrupt you. I mean, are you going to submit the $4.4 billion? Are you going to resubmit the tamper- proof card? Are you going to resubmit the employer verification or not?

CHERTOFF: I think we're going to say to the members of Congress who think they have a better way that they should produce legislation and pass legislation, which they have not done for the past two years.

They've tried enforcement only. That didn't pass. We've tried comprehensive. That stalled. I think it's now time for Congress, which has the power to legislate, to make a determination about how it wants to help us solve this problem.

WALLACE: But the government, the president, is not going to submit his own plan.

CHERTOFF: Well, we've submitted a budget. We submitted a comprehensive immigration plan. We agreed on $4.4 billion which was going to be secured by the payments made by the illegals so it would not bust the budget.

In the absence of that plan, I think now those who have a better way ought to come forward with that better way. We're still going to work on our part to enforce the border using the tools that we have. (emphasis mine)

We will see just how diligent you will remain, Secretary Chertoff, now that you aren't trying to convince the American people that securing the border is important to you in order to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

The sad thing is that even though the American people were heard loud and clear, nothing tangible will be done to secure our borders. Those who supported the comprehensive immigration reform will say it is the fault of those who opposed that legislation.

Those who opposed it because they wanted to see if the government could enforce the laws it already has on the books before considering another amnesty will be validated by the continued lack of effort on the part of our federal government to secure our borders and enforce those existing laws.

Our representatives will return to status quo.

Nothing substantial will be done to enforce our laws because the carrot that was being held out in the form of comprehensive immigration reform has been put back in the bushel basket and there's no longer any need to prove to the American people that the federal government takes it job to secure our borders seriously.

To those representatives:

Don't blame the opponents of the bill, do your job of securing our borders and then come back to us in a couple of years. The "ball's" still in your court and the "carrot" can be replaced but not unless you prove you are willing to do your job and do it consistently and do it long term.

Author's note: This post has been edited for content and the title changed.