Free Press censors

By Joel Thurtell

[donation]

The big question in this whole Detroit Kwamegate scandal — the best entertainment we’ve had in decades — is this: How did Detroit Free Press sleuths Jim Schaefer and Mike Elrick get their hands on the racy electronic text messages that sizzled the airwaves between Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick and his then chief of staff, Christine Beatty?

The messages are the heart of this soap opera, but they were and are protected by federal law, which supposedly prohibits wireless carriers like Detroit’s carrier SkyTel from doing what SkyTel did: The company handed thousands of inflammatory messages to somebody who had no right to them. That person then, it seems, passed them on to Schaefer and Elrick. The Free Press duo then put them in the paper, and all hell broke loose. A majority of the Detroit City Council wants to oust the mayor, who’s been charged with perjury because the messages contradict his sworn testimony in a police whistle-blower trial.

Meanwhile, the Free Press doesn’t want Kwame — or us — to know who gave Schaefer and Elrick the messages. So the paper’s been sitting on that corner of the story.

In those parts of the world located outside the Free Press newsroom, we call that censorship.

But the Free Press sure would like to print more dirt on Kwame!

So they went to court to argue that the First Amendment gives them the right to see — and print — more of Kwame’s messages. Why, they even say it’s in the PUBLIC INTEREST that they be allowed to pursue their Pulitzer without further hassles from hizzoner.

At the Free Press, you see, the text message windfall is seen by many as a free pass to the paper’s first Pulitzer Prize for writing since 1967. The problem now is that the latest Sludgegate scandal suggesting bribery of Detroit City Council members threatens to make Kwamegate seem like small potatoes.

Downsizing the stature of Kwamegate could mean bye-bye Pulitzer.

But as I say, the big untold story waiting for us patient Free Press readers is the one about the Free Press itself: Did the reporters fish those embarrassing text messages out of a sewer or did they just fall from the sky? How’d they get them? Who was the source? Did the source violate any laws by getting those messages? Did the Freepsters break any laws by accepting this seemingly career-enhancing but maybe illicitly-gotten cadeau?

The Freep ain’t sayin’.

That’s what editors at most papers would call a big hole in the story.

I call it censorship.

Now, thanks to Mayor Kwame and his phalanx of city-paid (they hope!) lawyers, we may find out how the two reporters got their hands on the scandalous messages. Is there a scandal in the getting of the scandal? Kwame’s lawyers are demanding that the two reporters be deposed under oath in the Free Press’ lawsuit to make public the text messages.

But Freep mouthpiece Hershel Fink and Editor Paul Anger are crying foul: They claim the First Amendment shields their reporters from having to testify. “Now he’s attacking the freedom of the press,” Anger said.

I’m confused. Has somebody tried to stop the Free Press from printing a story? Well, yes, of course: Free Press editors themselves. They are unwilling to tell us how the paper got the text messages.

The Free Press honchos have asked a judge to exempt the two journalists from doing what any other citizen would be obliged to do — testify in a trial where getting the truth involves possible jail time for Kwame and his erstwhile chief of staff and paramour, Christine Beatty, who also has been charged with several felonies.

The newspaper’s claim of immunity raises another question: Are journalists somehow a different class of citizen? Do they deserve to dodge giving crucial evidence that us mere mortals who lack access to a $400-an-hour lawyer would have to give or else risk being held in contempt and going to jail?

I’m trying to puzzle this out: According to the newspaper, it has a First Amendment right to know what’s in Kwame’s text messages, which were –notwithstanding the First Amendment — protected from disclosure by federal law.

But somehow the First Amendment also protects the paper’s reporters from having to disclose how they laid hands on the messages.

This is the newspaper, by the way, the so-called FREE Press, which claims its employees — people like Schaefer and Elrick and once upon a time me — don’t even HAVE First Amendment rights.

Can somebody help me decipher this?

Or am I just confounded by the magnitude of the hypocrisy?

Seems to me the Free Press wants it all their own way.

All Kwame’s saying is that he’d like to know how the two reporters got the documents. Well, I’d like to know, too. I think the public has a right to know how this big scoop was put together.

I can’t quite see how the public good is promoted by suppressing reporters’ testimony on how they got the messages while the paper is demanding more messages so it can publish them, sell more papers and nail that Pulitzer.

If the Freepsters have nothing to hide, why wouldn’t they just testify and add a new chapter to the story they broke? And if they do, the public needs to know what’s behind their big scoop.

Contact me at joelthurtell(at)gmail.com

Posted in Joel's J School, Kwamegate, Unions | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Reverend huckster

By Joel Thurtell


[donation]

A minister?


A lobbyist?


Wait a minute — this is the same person?


Can somebody out there tell me what the hell a minister was doing trying to persuade members of the Detroit City Council to approve a SLUDGE contract?


This is the Rev. Wendell Anthony, a well-known pastor in Detroit. He’s head of Detroit’s NAACP branch and a former minister at Fellowship Chapel and Broadstreet Presbyterian Church, both in Detroit.


You’d think a minister and NAACP official would refrain from taking political sides, other than, say, being a strong advocate for civil liberties.


Why would a guy like this take to writing letters on behalf of a sludge contractor like Houston-based Synagro Technologies, now being investigated by the feds for possibly bribing city officials, including council members, to approve its $47 million contract to process sludge from Detroit’s smelly waste treatment plant?


Because, it turns out, Rayford Jackson, one of the Synagro officials being investigated, is a member of the board of the Freedom Institute for Economic, Social Justice and Political Empowerment, a nonprofit headed by the reverend. On its website, the Freedom Institute describes itself as “an urban think tank that focuses on public policy issues that affect the quality of life for African Americans in particular and other minorities in general.”


Now, I wonder, what did a $47 million sludge contract for a rich out-of-state company have to do with “quality of life” in Detroit?


For that matter, what was in it for this Detroit think tank?Anthony wrote a letter to the council on Institute stationery extolling the merits of the contract.


Or was he — between the lines — extolling his friendship with the now-besieged Jackson?


In today’s Detroit Free Press, Anthony calls for the city to rescind the contract if Synagro got it illegally.


He’s also lobbied council members to support another besieged pal, Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick.


How can he be an effective minister or advocate of civil rights if he’s playing the very high-powered and partisan game of politics in Detroit?


Be a reverend, reverend. Quit trying to tilt the political playing field.


Be a minister, not a huckster.


Contact me at joelthurtell(at)gmail.com

Posted in Kwamegate, People | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Detroit newspapers: Layoffs possible

By Joel Thurtell

[donation]

Operative word: “Layoffs.”

Detroit Media Partnership has offered its latest buyout to members of eight unions representing workers at the Detroit Free Press and Detroit News, according to a letter to employees from Kristi Bowden, vice president of human resources.

Layoffs now loom over the staffs of the two papers.

The offer — which contains the layoff threat — is open until July 18. The papers are looking for 150 people to depart, taking severance packages worth two weeks of salary for each year of service, but capped at a year of pay.

If more than 150 volunteer, managers may say “adios” to all.

But if fewer than 150 apply, the ax may fall.

“If the voluntary offer doesn’t result in a sufficient number of volunteers, or if in future, economic conditions worsen, it may be necessary to consider layoffs,” Bowden warned.

Contact me at joelthurtell(at)gmail.com

Posted in future of newspapers, Joel's J School, Unions | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Brooks barges in

By Joel Thurtell

Where were Bob and Kwame?

The scene couldn’t have been more Detroit, more Wayne County: I’m standing on a barge docked at the mouth of the Rouge River opposite Zug Island. The huge black blast furnaces of the U.S. Steel mill tower over us, billowing steam.

But the guy with the sunglasses that I’m listening to, holding forth in a press conference on the merits of an international bridge spanning between Windsor, Ontario in Canada to a spot a few hundred yards north of the Detroit-Windsor Truck Ferry’s barge, is not from Wayne County, not from Detroit.

He’s the Oakland County executive, L. Brooks Patterson.

Wait a minute — Isn’t his base in Pontiac? Since when does Brooks speak for Detroit?

I didn’t come for a press conference. I came to hitch a ride on the Detroit-Windsor Truck Ferry, whose dock these amateur thespians have commandeered. I’ll blog about my ride on the barge and tugboat later. Right now, I can’t help wondering, having stumbled into this show, why Brooks Patterson is waxing eloquent, as he always does, but why, oh why is he doing it here, in Detroit, in Wayne County?

He’s going on about how he’s bucking his own Republican party to support this international bridge so New York doesn’t build one that siphons truck traffic away from Michigan.

And I’m thinking, but this is Detroit, this is Wayne County.

So where’s Bob?

And where’s Kwame?

As in Wayne County Executive Bob Ficano and Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick.

Brooks Patterson and Windsor Mayor Eddie Francis are taking turns yakking with reporters, but they’re only half of this regional equation. Hey, they don’t live or work in Detroit/Wayne County.

Later, I got an earful from Dennis Niemiec, an aide to Ficano.

The Wayne County exec was not invited to this dog and pony show, Niemiec told me. Today’s presser has not exactly been the high tide of regional cooperation, he said.

Nor was Kwame Kilpatrick asked to R.S.V.P.

What’s going on?

The top dogs in Wayne County and Detroit aren’t invited to a show being held on their own turf?

How dumb is that?

I understand this shindig was orchestrated from Washington, D.C.

I don’t know much about this bridge issue, haven’t covered it as a beat. But I know one thing — if you want a project to happen in Detroit/Wayne County, you don’t have somebody from tony Oakland County cruise into the poorest, dirtiest neighborhood in Detroit to hold a press conference and snub Detroit’s two top officials.

Somebody want to kill this bridge?

Contact me at joelthurtell(at)gmail.com


Posted in Adventures on the Rouge, People, Places | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Watson to the nth

By Joel Thurtell

JoAnn Watson has had enough.

So have I — enough of her holier-than-thou chatter.

The Detroit city councilwoman was upset that the city’s law department hired two lawyers to help besieged Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick keep the council from ousting him.

“It’s outrageous to the nth degree,” Watson told a Detroit Free Press reporter.

I agree that public officials need to be careful about how they spend taxpayer money. But I’m not thinking of the pay that will go to compensate Kwame’s lawyers at $300 an hour.

No, no. I’m thinking back a few years to 2003, when Watson wasn’t outraged to any degree as she campaigned for her council seat while still collecting her federally-funded paycheck as a legislative aide to

U.S. Rep. John Conyers Jr. in the congressman’s Detroit office.

That’s right, until April 29, 2003, Watson was cashing congressional paychecks from her $46,382-a-year federal job supposedly helping Conyers serve constituents. But for much of that spring she was actually on the stump to win her council seat.

Not only that, but Conyers himself was working on her behalf. He assigned legislative aides not only from Detroit, but staffers from his Washington, D.C. office and lawyers from the House Judiciary Committee to do campaign work for Watson and others of his politic al proteges on office time.

Conyers was investigated by the House Ethics Committee for ordering staffers to do campaign work on congressionally-paid time, because that is a violation of House ethics rules and may well be illegal.

Eventually, in 1996, the Ethics Committee let him off the hook.

How do I know these things? Why, they were published in the Detroit Free Press. It happens that I was the reporter assigned along with two others to report and write the Nov. 21, 2003 stories that prompted the ethics panel to look into Conyers. It was our report that triggered the Ethics Committee investigation.

The Free Press report revealed that “staffers for the (then) 19-term Democrat told the Free Press they have used government telephones, printers, fax machines and mailing lists to solicit campaign contributions, organize fund-raisers and canvass for votes.”

“It is illegal to raise political funds from any federal office,” we wrote.

Our report was “based on extensive interviews with six current and former Conyers aides, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals, and Enid Brown, a Conyers volunteer who said she took notes at a campaign strategy session attended by Conyers and staff members in his downtown Detroit office. The Free Press also examined congressional payroll and campaign finance records, and schedules and internal records for Conyers’ office.

In the article, we quoted House Judiciary Committee attorney Burton Wides denying Conyers did anything wrong.

“Conyers was not available for an interview,” we wrote.

Since those articles were published, a major source for them has gone on the record. She is Deanna Maher, now retired and living in Holland, Mich., but then chief of staff of Conyers’ Downriver office in Southgate.

According to our story, which I have republished in this blog with Free Press permission, “The two-month investigation found that many members of Conyers’ staff, as well as at least one Judiciary Committee employee who reports to him, campaigned on government time without keeping track of their time as required by House rules.”

I’m going to quote extensively from our Nov. 21, 2003 article, because much of it focused on the effort Conyers was making to help his protege, Watson, defeat City Council President Gil Hill. Most of that effort, according to our inside sources, was being made on government-paid staff time.

It’s worth keeping this information in mind when the woman who unseated Gil Hill while cashing federal paycheks rants about improper spending of public funds.

According to our story, “Conyers staffers and Judiciary Committee aides worked (in spring 2003) on the Detroit City Council campaign of Watson, a Conyers aide, well-known city activist and radio talk show host.

“On April 18, Conyers attended a lengthy meeting in his downtown Detroit office to plot strategy for Watson’s race against City Council President Gil Hill, said Enid Brown, a private investigator volunteering for Conyers, and others who attended the meeting.

“At the meeting, Conyers asked 10 staffers, Judiciary Committee staff attorney Lillian German and Brown to help find information that could be used against Hill, they said. German had ben hired earlier that month.

“Conyers raised two issues himself, about a loan to Hill from Hill’s wife and Hill’s role on a city pension board that had lost money.

“Brown, who lives in Franklin, said Conyers asked her to find out whether the loan was legal and for more information on the pension issue.

“Conyers knew Brown had done research on the pension issue. Brown said she joined the discussion because she respects Conyers. But although she’s seen Conyers’ aides do legitimate constituent work on their own time, she said she thought his staff should not be working on the Watason campaign on work time and in his office.

” ‘I don’t know if there is any proof of a crime, but there was a discussion of a campaign issue by people on the clock,’ Brown said. Wides said the meeting was to discuss possible ballot fraud in the upcoming election, which he said was an issue of interest to the Judiciary Committee.

“Brown and others at the meeting said the participants, besides Conyers, were German and Watson, and staff members Carol Patton, Joel Segal and Glenn Osowski, aides in Conyers’ Washington office; (Detroit office Chief of Staff Ray) Plowden; Deanna Maher, chief of staff in Conyers’ Downriver office; Karen Morgan, Conyers’ Detroit press secretary, and Marian Brown, Barbara Herard, Christian Thornton and Alexia Smokler of the Detroit office.

“All were paid members of Conyers’ staff at the time of the meeting, according to congressional disbursement records.”

I’ll interrupt this quotation here to note that Maher, the Downriver chief of staff mentioned above, was my primary unnamed source for this story. She has since retired and gone on the record.

Now back to the story:

“The records also show Watson never took an unpaid leave to campaign for her new job and, in fact, collected her $46,382-a-year congressional staff salary until the day she was sworn in as a council member. Watson declined to comment.

“Plowden said he and Watson talked about her duties when she entered the race and agreed that she would continue working 20 hours a week for Conyers while she ran for the City Council.

“U.S. House ethics rules state that part-time employees may engage in campaign activities, ‘provided the time spent on both official and campaign activities is carefully documented.’

“Wides, Conyers’ legal counsel, said Watson campaigned on her own time while working 20 hours a week during the City Council primary campaign. He said Watson then took vacation and comp time to campaign for the general election and keep her paycheck coming.

“He declined to provide documentation.

“Plowden said Watson worked regular hours in the office answering phones and writing letters to constituents. Former and current staff members said Watson was rarely seen in the office.”

Contradictions by the bosses, but bottom line: Watson kept on cashing her government paychecks.

Next time Watson gets outraged “to the nth degree,” keep in mind how she managed to mute her indignation as a political candidate subsidized by federal pay.

Contact me at joelthurtell(at)gmail.com

Posted in JC & Me, Kwamegate | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Sugar-coating the buyout

By Joel Thurtell

It’s hard for newspapers to cover their own industry.

It’s even harder for them to report news about their own newspaper.

Maybe that’s an excuse the Detroit Free Press could trundle out for running today’s (July 7, 2008) front page propaganda piece under the headline, “Surviving the buyout.”

A reader of this Freep story would think buyouts only happen in the automobile industry. The story focuses on the happy denouement of one American Axle worker who through the good old attributes of diligence, hard work, pluck and, yes, maybe a dose of good fortune, managed to spin his auto-making skills into a job at a parts supplier, albeit in far-off South Carolina.

Let’s see, there were 2,000 buyouts at American Axle, 19,000 at General Motors, and thousands more at Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler. From all that potential source material, the Free Press finds one success story to tell us about. Couldn’t they have thrown in a second happy ending just to show us this was not, maybe, one asymptomatic case?

But my beef with this story is not about the statistical insignificance of the good luck guy it features.

What amazes me is the newspaper’s chutzpah at failing to mention anywhere in the article that Gannett, the owner of the Free Press and Detroit News, last year shed 110 workers by offering buyouts and right now is bargaining with its unions over its goal of buying out 160 more workers at both papers and the corporation known as Detroit Media partnership that runs them. That’s 260 workers, roughly 13 percent of the workforce hitting the streets, and this Page One story keeps the news under the editors’ collective hats.

Remember, this is the same paper that has its heart set on winning a Pulitzer Prize for its coverage of Detroit’s scandal-ridden mayor.

Why is the Free Press trumpeting another industry’s woes while pretending its own downsizing is a non-event?

Several reasons come to mind.

Embarrassment? Nah, this company is pretty hard to shame. This is the newspaper that bleats about its First Amendment rights in court while privately telling staffers that as employees of a private corporation, they have no First Amendment rights.

Maybe they’re trying to sugarcoat the buyout process for their own workforce, sweet-talking employees as they ease them out the door. Certainly, their aim, based on one anecdote, was to paint a singularly upbeat picture of the fate of people who take buyouts. Upbeat so long as they are exemplary employees, working hard to gain new skills and make themselves more attractive to their bosses because, well, there is an alternative to being bought out. It’s called “You’re fired!”

The irony is that this hardworking guy who hustles to learn additional skills still was considered superfluous at American Axle. But hey, why be picky? If you’re going to extrapolate general conclusions from one case, the logical flaw is already self-evident.

(Incidentally, I know something about buyouts — I’m one of the former Gannett staffers who took a buyout last year.)

Here’s another reason why the Free Press might want to lather the buyouts in whitewash:

Underneath the buyout chatter is the very real threat that if Gannett doesn’t see 150 hands raised for the latest “voluntary” retirement plan, they’ll move to Phase Two.That’s called Layoffs.

Layoffs are a dicey area for Gannett, because part of its staff is unionized with contracts that call for sacking people based on seniority. And part of the staff is not unionized, which means they’re at-will employees subject to being fired at any time for any reason. Or for no reason.

Imagine the turmoil at the Detroit papers as nonunion workers realize Gannett could cherry-pick favorites to keep on, firing anyone who ever displeased them.

But Gannett might be reluctant to lay people off, at least among the union areas.

You see, the union contracts call for an open shop, meaning workers covered by the labor-managment contract aren’t required to become union members.

At both the News and Free Press, there are many relatively new hires, some of whom have refused to join the union. It wouldn’t surprise me if some of the free riders believe they’ve ingratiated themselves with management by refusing to pay union dues. These are the suck-ups, kind of like the hero in today’s Free Press buyout story, people managers would love to keep in place while dumping anyone who might have questioned them.

Because of contract rules that demand “last hired-first fired,” the company will have a harder time within union jurisdictions in cherry-picking its favorites to stay.

In other words, if they start laying off in the union people, some of their fair-haired pals may be the first to go.

But if I were a staffer in a nonunion area of Detroit newspapers, here’s the message I’d read in today’s Free Press: “Behave yourself, and we won’t fire you. Maybe.”

Contact me at joelthurtell(at)gmail.com

Posted in future of newspapers, Joel's J School, Unions | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Right after all

By Joel Thurtell

 

News in late June that the Detroit Free Press will print its last editions of the Community Free Press on Aug. 1 stunned the reporters, editors, photographers and myriad freelancers who’ve diligently worked to make those mini-papers popular with readers.

 

In Detroit and 10 suburban areas where they circulate, the CFPs have managed to give the Free Press a local persona that is sorely lacking in the Big Paper. Kwamegate will get you through half a cup of coffee, but most readers don’t live in Detroit. They want to read about their communities. Soon that identification with local needs will be gone, and the people who work to make the CFPs high-quality sections are wondering why their sections are being put to death.

 

Not enough advertising revenue coming from CFPs, says management.

 

The real reason, I think, is that the CFPs were envisioned several years ago when then Free Press owner Knight-Ridder was looking for ways to compete with the suburban Observer & Eccentric newspapers. But on Aug. 3, 2005, Knight-Ridder sold the Free Press — which it had owned since 1940 — to Gannett. Soon thereafter, Knight-Ridder itself was sold, broken up and no longer exists.The sale of the Free Press to Gannett made that chain — biggest in the country — owner of both Detroit dailies (Media News runs the Detroit News for Gannett and receives a small management fee), which should trouble anybody committed to having separately-owned newspapers in the area. It should also concern lawyers at the U.S. Justice Department presumably dedicated to making sure anti-trust laws are not violated.)

 

But Gannett also owns the Observer & Eccentric papers. That means the CFPs are competing head to head with another Gannett property. In a competitive situation, that would be good. But this is a monopoly, and monopolies kind of don’t like competition.

 

I heard another reason, from a Freepster, why Gannett is shutting down the CFPs. Supposedly, Gannett managers got wind that The Newspaper Guild was going to file a grievance claiming the Free Press has been overusing free lancers on the CFPs. Not wanting to face yet another defeat in an arbitration case, managers decided to pull the CFP plug.

 

I don’t buy it. Now, it’s true that the Free Press never had enough full-time writers to fill the CFPs. Free lancers have written many of the CFP stories, and a case could be made that one or two of them, at least, are working full-time without benefit of the Guild contract. Ditto free lance photographers. The union has grieved that kind of situation before, and won in arbitration.

 

But I don’t believe that’s why Gannett is dumping the suburban papers. First, even if it’s true that the Guild is planning to file a grievance, how would Free Press bigwigs get wind of it? It’s not like the Guild’s one full-time employee, President and Administrative Officer Lou Mleczko, is having lunch with Free Press Executive Editor Caesar Andrews or Editor Paul Anger. I understand the air gets pretty chilly around managers when Mleczko shows his face. The union has won two major arbitrations recently, and that has embarrassed mamagers.

 

Besides, why would shutting the CFPs stop the Guild from filing a grievance?

 

Mostly, the Guild is not on the bosses’ radar. In the hearing for my own arbitration, about the editors’ attempt to ban my political activity, Andrews testified he hadn’t read the union contract. (I won the arbitration, by the way; see the category “Arbitration” in this blog)

 

Here’s what I think happened: Last January, Gannett was poised to kill the CFPs in a couple weeks. I learned that managers had announced this, so I posted the news in joelontheroad.com. You can read about it in my Jan. 29 post under the “Joel’s J School” category.) Within days, I learned that managers had reversed their decision and had promised to save the CFPs. Big relief among staffers. What heroes those bosses are!

 

My guess is that the chiefs didn’t like being outed in joelontheroad.com. So they announced they were saving the CFPs, all the while intending to kill them off a few months down the road. That way, they could make my blog appear goofy in predicting the demise of a popular publication which didn’t die, despite my prediction. Then they could come around in the summer six months later and, assuming memories are short, kill the CFPs off without anyone suspecting that was their plan, slightly delayed, all along.

 

Nice try, guys!

 

The CFPs are history after all, and you read about it first in joelontheroad.com.

 

Contact me at joelthurtell(at)gmail.com   

Posted in future of newspapers, Joel's J School, Unions | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Where did turkeys go? Gleaners asks if Conyers’ staff helped needy people

By Joel Thurtell

[donation]

One more in a series of articles I wrote for the Detroit Free Press about the way U.S. Rep. John Conyers Jr. handles business in his congressoinal ofices.

This story appears with permission of the Detroit Free Press

Copyright 2005 by Detroit Free Press

Headline: WHERE DID TURKEYS GO?

Sub-Head: GLEANERS ASKS IF CONYERS’ STAFF HELPED NEEDY PEOPLE

Byline: BY JOEL THURTELL FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

Pub-Date: 1/5/2005

Memo:Correction:

Text: The director of a Detroit food bank wants to know what happened to 60 turkeys — 720 pounds of frozen birds — that his charity gave to members of U.S. Rep. John Conyers’ local staff two days before Thanksgiving to give to needy people.

Conyers’ Detroit office promised an accounting of any turkey distribution by Dec. 27, but the Gleaners Community Food Bank had received no paperwork as of Tuesday, said the charity’s director, Agostinho Fernandes.

Fernandes said he became suspicious that the turkeys didn’t get to poor people after hearing from a friend that a federal court worker had said he was offered free turkeys from a member of Conyers’ staff.

Conyers’ press secretary Karen Morgan said Tuesday that she was told that some of Conyers’ staffers gave the turkeys to poor people whose names were provided by the state Family Independence Agency. A fax with those names, she said, was to be sent Tuesday or today to Gleaners.

Maureen Sorbet, a spokeswoman for the FIA, said Tuesday, “I spoke to the central FIA office in Wayne County, and they were unaware of the turkey situation.

“Normally, we don’t provide names” of FIA clients, Sorbet added. “Sometimes at Christmastime we might if people self-disclose. It’s remotely possible.”

By mid-afternoon Tuesday, Fernandes said he had received nothing from Conyers’ office.

“I’ve got to tell you that our mission of feeding hungry people has been violated by the people who should have been guardians of our mission,” Fernandes said.

Fernandes said Conyers staffer Elisa Grubbs signed a Gleaners invoice Nov. 23 acknowledging she picked up the turkeys on the congressman’s behalf. Fernandes sent the Free Press a copy of the invoice.

Morgan said the staffers who picked up the turkeys had promised to provide Gleaners with an accounting by Dec. 27. Morgan said she would ask Conyers to call the Free Press to answer questions about the turkeys, but he did not.

Morgan said Tuesday that she had been assured that a list of recipients exists, but added that she had not seen it.

“You can imagine how we feel,” Fernandes said. “They didn’t pay anything. This was donations to them to help the needy. We get calls from different representatives who want to put together food baskets for their needy constituents and you have faith that these people are going to bring the food to the people it’s intended to go to.”

A Conyers staff member who asked not to be named for fear of reprisal told the Free Press that Grubbs and her cousin, Conyers’ Detroit deputy chief of staff Marion Brown, along with a former Conyers aide, DeWayne Boyd, picked up the turkeys and later gave contradictory accounts of what happened to the birds.

The unnamed staff member raised concerns in a memo sent to both the FBI and House ethics committee. Conyers was the target of an informal ethics committee inquiry last year following a Free Press investigation about use of staff members during work hours for political campaigns.

Boyd, who was fired from Conyers’ Detroit office in 2002, was convicted on seven counts of fraud last month in U.S. District Court in connection with a scam he ran from Conyers’ office in 1999.

Boyd, Brown and Grubbs did not return Free Press calls.

A spokesman for the ethics committee could not be reached for comment.

A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office declined comment.

Caption:

Illustration:

Edition: METRO FINAL

Section: NWS

Page: 1B

Keywords: Gleaners Community Food Bank; turkey; donation; John Conyers; criticism; conduct; ethics

Contact me at joelthurtell(at)gmail.com

Posted in Conyers series | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Fourth of July revery

By Joel Thurtell

What if we lived in a country where companies could ban employees from voting?

How democratic would that be?

Well, it hasn’t happened. But it could.

And there is an industry where political activity already is looked at askance.

In that industry, political activity is considered by some as nefarious behavior unbecoming a professional practitioner.

What industry am I thinking of?

Newspapers, specifically, and Journalism in general.

I was aware when I was a reporter at the Detroit Free Press that at least one reporter refused to vote on the grounds that it showed a political preference and therefore a bias.

And reporters, you know, are not supposed to be biased.

Of course, that’s poppycock.

All of us have opinions about everything that happens to us. It’s human nature. Simply to refrain from voting is no sign that a person doesn’t hold opinions. If not voting is meant to somehow suppress opinions, it fails. The opinions are still there, even if they’re unexpressed.

Now, I could see not voting if a citizen, upon reflection, couldn’t stand any of the candidates or their political views. In that case, not voting is at least expressing an opinion. It is a form of choice.

Not voting out of fear it will reveal a political preference defeats the aim of democracy. Of course we reveal our preference and indeed our opinion and yes, too, a bias by voting. That’s the point. One or two votes here, a few more there make an aggregate that expresses the people’s will.

Voting is how we select the people who will govern us. Not to vote is bailing out of the democratic process.

When journalists tell me they don’t vote because they want to preserve their impartiality, I sense an unspoken other reason for taking that position: It differentiates this person from the general masses. It is a sacrifice made on the altar of objective Journalism. The Journalist who has withdrawn from society and politics to the extent that he or she will not participate in democracy is setting him/herself apart from the masses.

Not only is this nonvoting Journalist different from the rest of humanity, but the Journalist-purist is also superior.

In his or her view.

I’ve gotten this sense from some Journalists who responded with hostility to my donation of $500 to Michigan Democrats four years ago. You can read about my case in my blog category called “Arbitration.” Earlier this year, The Newspaper Guild and I won the case against the Free Press and its owner, Gannett. An arbitrator ruled that Free Press managers were wrong to ban employees from taking part in politics by making political contributions to parties or candidates. Now, the Free Press had not banned voting. But after editors learned in June 2007 — three years after the fact — of my donation, they amended the paper’s ethics policy to ban political donations. And they threatened to fire me if I made future contributions. Strong stuff.

(Here is equally strong stuff: A Michigan law, the Bullard-Plawecki Employee Right to Know Act, bars employers from tracking workers’ political activity. It appears to me that the Free Press bigwigs were violating that law when they made an issue of my politics.)

If an ethics policy can ban political activity, and that’s what my donation was, then it can also forbid employees to vote. They can put anything they want into those ethics policies, and they can try to enforce them.

But no edict from management is needed for the elect. Some Journalists try what appears to be self-policing. I received an email from a Journalist who said he could never trust my reporting because I’d given money to a political party. It’s quite an amazing statement when you think about it. I gave money to a political party, so that makes me a liar? What about all the non-Journalists who give money to candidates or political causes? Are they liars, too?

Everybody, every institution, is in the political game. How many Journalists give money to the Detroit Symphony Orchestra? I do. The orchestra has a political agenda. They seek financial aid from various governments. That means they lobby governments. Okay, what about churches? How many Journalists give money to religious institutions? But churches and religious organizations have political agendas, don’t they? Isn’t the Catholic church opposed to abortion? That’s a matter of government policy. Controversial, too. Don’t churches need charters for private schools? Where do they get them? The government, right?

The orchestra, the churches, arts councils, even the Boy Scouts, they all are politically involved. Nobody calls them a liar. Nobody says because they support this or that cause, they are dishonest. And nobody says that Journalists who give them money are liars.

Ah yes, but Journalists are supposed to report what happens. How can they do that effectively and honestly if they are involved politically?

Well, here’s how: They can be fair. They can listen to all sides and give each a voice. What more do you want?

But this Journalistic elitism concerns me. There’s a movement afoot to have Congress enact a law to shield reporters from having to testify in trials. It’s meant to protect Journalists from having to name their sources to prosecutors trying criminal cases.

What makes Journalists different from other human beings? Isn’t the rest of the citizenry obliged to testify in trials in order to ensure justice is done? What would exempt a reporter? The fact that he or she doesn’t vote or make political contributions?

There is no aristocracy of Journalism. This is a democracy. We are all entitled to vote. Not voting does not make anyone better than his or her peers. We are all entitled to take part in politics, and that includes donating money to political causes.

And we are all obligated to testify if ordered by a court to give evidence.

Our democracy is for everybody, Journalists included.

Contact me at joelthurtell(at)gmail.com

Posted in Joel's J School | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Cart before the nag: Kwame’s innocent until…

By Joel Thurtell

Reading the Detroit Free Press, you’d think Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick was already behind bars, convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice in the text message scandal.

Maybe that’s where the paper’s staffers would like him to be, on the assumption that a jailed Kwame would enhance their claim on a Pulitzer Prize for breaking the story.

Hold on, guys! He hasn’t even had his preliminary examination. That’s the hearing set for Sept. 22 in Detroit’s 36th District Court when Judge Ronald Giles will decide whether Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy has enough evidence to show that crimes were committed and that hizzoner and former Chief of Staff Christine Beatty probably committed them.

Following the hearing into evidence in the probable cause hearing, Judge Giles could either bind one or both of the defendants over for trial in Wayne County Circuit Court, or he could release them, ruling Worthy’s evidence didn’t pass the probability test.

But that’s not quite how it’s seen in the newsroom of the Free Press, apparently. In a summary of the text message scandal and an offhand pat on its own back, the paper today (July 3, 2008) stated that “The case began when the Free Press discovered text messages showing Kilpatrick and Beatty committed perjury during a whistle-blower lawsuit last year.”

At another spot in the story, the paper states that “Kilpatrick and Beatty were charged with perjury and misuse of office after the Free Press published text messages from Beatty’s pager showing they lied under oath and tried to mislead jurors in a police whistle-blower trial.”

Now, reporters and editors may BELIEVE that Kwame and his alleged paramour perjured themselves. But to date, it has not been proven that they actually did.

No court has so far ruled that the text messages “show” anything.

What they “show” is in the eye of the beholder, including the many Pulitzer-hungry eyes of the Free Press editorial staff.

Kwame’s lawyers are planning to argue that he didn’t write the messages. They were, after all, taken from Beatty’s pager account, not the mayor’s. And his lawyers plan to argue that the city had an expectation that wireless communications records kept by its electronic communications provider, a company called SkyTel, would not be disclosed. It appears that SkyTel may have violated federal communications law in releasing the text messages. Those may seem like dubious and fragile arguments, but hey, he’s entitled to make them.

Nobody so far has PROVEN anything. Not even the Free Press.

If the case ends up in circuit court, Prosecutor Worthy will face a stiffer test: She must prove not that Kwame and Beatty probably committed perjury. She must prove beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT that they did it.

If a jury agrees, then it will be safe to say, with the Free Press, that the text messages “show” that the two committed perjury.

Until then, we’ll just have to wait.

I know that’s hard on folks at the Free Press.

What if the trial is held AFTER the Pulitzer judging?

Contact me at joelthurtell(at)gmail.com

Posted in Joel's J School, Kwamegate | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment