Kwamegate vs. Sludgegate

By Joel Thurtell

There’s a thing in architecture called perspective. Look at a five-story building by itself, without comparison to other structures, and it looks big. Stand beside it, and it seems gigantic.

Build a 60-story tower next to it, and look again.

It seems tiny.

Now, think about Kwamegate. Until last weekend, Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick’s racy text messages were the biggest story Detroit had seen in decades. The scandal towered over other news stories. The Detroit Free Press caught hizzoner making what he thought were private electronic comments to his chief of staff and erstwhile paramour, remarks that contradicted his and her sworn testimony in an $8.4 million lawsuit.

Last weekend, we got perspective. We learned, thanks apparently to a Justice Department leak, that the FBI is looking at four Detroit City Council members for heavy-duty corruption. They’re suspected of selling their votes for small amounts of money in a sludge-processing deal worth $47 million to a Houston contractor called Synagro Technologies. Graft seems to have been rampant in the Coleman A. Young Building.

But so far, Kwame hasn’t been implicated. The Wayne County prosecutor’s perjury charges against him now look pretty puny next to the influence-peddling felony charges that could come out of this probe.

Suddenly, next to Sludgegate, Kwamegate looks like a little trash can sitting next to a mountain of garbage.

Maybe it wasn’t such a big deal, after all.

Contact me at joelthurtell(at)gmail.com

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

Fantasy JOA for Detroit?

By Joel Thurtell

In January, joelontheroad.com broke news about the start of a possible Joint Operating Agreement between my blog and the Detroit News and Free Press.

 

 

I didn’t get much response.

 

In fact, the only response I got came five days after my January 13 JOA scoop when a Gannett lawyer brought it up during the arbitration hearing into my $500 donation in 2004 to Michigan Democrats.

 

 

Gannett’s mouthpiece wondered what I meant by mentioning a JOA between joelontheroad.com and Detroit newspapers. I think he was trying to catch me off guard. Probably wanted to embarrass me. But hey, I learned from Gannett and Knight-Ridder — what’s to be embarrassed about a JOA?

 

He waved a printout of my blog at me. It had my JOA quip.

 

 

It was a joke, I told him.

 

 

That was true.

 

 

Then.

 

 

What I was referring to was real enough — a conversation I had with one of the Free Press brass about the possibility of a joint production agreement between Gannett’s Detroit Media Partnership and my then days-old blog.

 

I was beginning to realize that making money off my blog — “monetizing” it, as we say in the Blogosphere — would not be easy. I could already sense negative cash flow and the beginning of a downward spiral. Naturally, the idea of getting into a news monopoly jumped into my head.

 

The conversation happened at a going-away party for a crew of us old-time Freepsters who were taking buyouts last November in what turns out to have been Round One of DMP’s downsizing. (Last week, management at the Detroit News and Detroit Free Press announced they want to add 150 more names to the 110 who left last year for a total attrition of roughly 13 percent)

 

 

Anyway, at the party, I happened to be chatting with Free Press Editor Paul Anger. I wisecracked that in a year or so I might come back to work out a joint operating deal with Gannett.

 

 

He wisecracked back that he hoped Gannett would “have better lawyers this time.”

 

 

I learned later that Gannettoids felt they got rooked in the JOA with Knight-Ridder, though Gannett got to name three members to the five-member JOA board.

 

 

Sure, my JOA comment was a joke last fall, despite the Gannett lawyer’s attempt to fish some other meaning from it.

 

 

But I’m not joking now. Over dinner a couple nights ago at the monthly meeting of the Plymouth Press Corps in Plymouth’s Box Bar, with four current Free Press staffers on hand, the hot-button subject we call “the future of newspapers” was depressing everyone, given the week’s news about another set of buyouts.

 

 

The subject is surrounded by fatalism. Staffers are wondering, How long will the Detroit papers last? Will Gannett close the Free Press? The News is hanging by a thread. Will it be dumped?

 

 

My response to all the doom and gloom: Gannett will sell, not close, the Detroit papers.

 

 

“But who would buy? Nobody in their right mind would want to own a newspaper,” a Freepster said.

 

Others listed as nearly bankrupt Media News, owner of the Detroit News, McClatchy, which bought and dismantled Knight-Ridder, former owner of the Free Press, and the Tribune Company. Three of many news organizations in deep weeds.

 

 

“Look at the Tribune — they’re selling their tower in Chicago,” I was told.

 

Yes, Tribune owner Sam Zell has listed the gothic landmark on Chicago’s Michigan Avenue for sale. Note, though, that he hasn’t listed the news business for sale.

 

 

That’s because there still is money to be made from newspapers.

 

 

Despite all the yammering about Detroit, Gannett is making money.

 

 

But they may be sick of trying to milk Detroit.

 

 

If Gannett ever decides to sell its Detroit papers, I know where they can find a buyer.

 

 

Me.

 

 

What am I, nuts?

 

 

Well, okay, maybe.

 

 

 

 

One thing’s sure, though — I won’t need to be wealthy.

 

 

 

 

When they decide to sell, Gannett will have unwound so much value from the papers that they’ll let them go for a song.

I’ll be glad to sing for my papers.

 

 

But I’ll give them a chance not to hear my basso rotundo: Enter into a JOA with joelontheroad.com.

 

 

Just as Gannett was the dominant partner in the 1989 JOA it had with Knight-Ridder, so the dominant partner in the DMP-joelontheroad.com JOA will be, guess who?

 

 

Right.

 

 

Me.

 

 

I will have a five-member governing board, just as there was in 1989. Gannett will have one seat on the board. Joelontheroad.com will have three seats. I’ll be chairman. First people I ask to serve on the board will be former state Sen. John Kelly and former Plymouth Community Crier owner Ed Wendover, the two brave men who lost their legal fight to block the JOA back in the 1980s.

 

 

Not so fast, guys. It’s not over.

 

 

The fifth member?

 

 

Why, he will be Lou Mleczko, president of Newspaper Guild Local 22, which also fought the JOA.

 

 

I’m not afraid of those old anti-JOA guys, because this JOA will be worker-friendly, pro-journalism and anti-corporate bullshit.

 

 

(In case the Gannett lawyer is reading, I’d better stress that his is purely a FANTASY JOA)

 

This new JOA will benefit Gannett shareholders, too, just as Gannett now benefits Media News, the company that operates the Detroit News. Gannett will get 5 percent of net profits made by the new JOA, like the cut they’re sharing, in theory, with Media News. (I hear Gannett isn’t coughing up for Media News)

 

 

 

 

I can make this happen, folks, because unlike the News and Free Press, I actually have a plan.Gannett execs who want to continue JOA talks know how to reach me.Oh, and not to worry about the quality of the lawyering this time around. I plan to hire the Royal Oak firm of Martens, Ice, Klass, Legghio & Israel. They know how to trump Gannett. They beat Gannett in my political activity arbitration.Contact me at joelthurtell(at)gmail.com

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

Embarrassing John Conyers?

 

By Joel Thurtell

 

Sam Riddle thinks the FBI wants to embarrass U.S. Rep. John Conyers Jr. He’s convinced that’s why the feds reportedly are investigating the congressman’s wife, Detroit City Councilwoman Monica Conyers.

 

No, Sam, I don’t think so.

 

Riddle said in today’s (July 1, 2008) Detroit Free Press that “I’m firmly convinced that there are elements in the U.S. Attorney’s Office who would love to make a case against anyone whose last name is Conyers, if for no other reason than to embarrass the chairman of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee.”

 

Riddle added a punch line: “Councilwoman Conyers can do that on her own without the assistance of the FBI. She’s demonstrated that time and time again.”

 

Riddle should know. Until recently, he was Monica’s chief of staff. He was her spokesman when we called her office two years ago to comment before the Detroit Free Press ran our March 2, 2006 story detailing how, at hubby’s behest, Monica had congressional staffers chauffeur her and her kids, babysit her kids sometimes in the congressman’s office in the Detroit federal building and once for weeks at a time in her Detroit house while she was in Oklahoma attending law school.

 

And she had lawyers on hubby’s staff and lawyers on the House Judiciary Committee staff tutor her for her law school classes.

Riddle’s job then was to deny the nannygate report, which he did.

 

The tutoring, by the way, didn’t take: To date, Monica has sat for the Michigan bar exam — required to hold a license to practice law — four times, most recently in July 2007. And all four times, she has flunked the test, according to the Board of Law Examiners.

 

I don’t believe the FBI is out primarily to embarrass Congressman Conyers, because if that were their wish, they’ve had plenty opportunity before this. You might think they, or the Bush administration, might long ago have wanted to bring Conyers down a notch. After all, he was thundering at one time about holding hearings into the impeachment of President George W. Bush.

 

The government could have stigmatized Conyers with a probe as early as 2002, when one of his staffers presented the Justice Department with what she was persuaded was ample evidence of potential wrongdoing.

 

The babysitting and tutoring of his wife are cases in point. It is illegal as well as a violation of House ethics rules for a congressperson to order his aides to do non-government, personal work on the federal dime.

 

Period.

 

Is the FBI investigating that?

 

Not that I’m aware.

 

The feds knew about the babysitting in 2002. They knew about lots more serious allegations, too. One of my sources for the stories I wrote about Congressman Conyers’ abuse of staffers was Deanna Maher, chief of staff of his Downriver office then in Southgate. Maher took her concerns to the FBI in late 2002 around the time the FBI raided the offices of the late Ed McNamara, then Wayne County chief executive.The FBI could have embarrassed Conyers plenty then, but they weren’t interested in what Maher showed them.

 

Frustrated, she turned to the newspapers, talking to reporters at both Detroit papers.

 

In late 2002, my editors at the Free Press assigned me to work on the McNamara story. I learned from then Free Press reporter Dennis Niemiec, my partner on that project, that Maher was claiming Conyers was making his aides from Detroit and Washington, D.C. and lawyers from the Judiciary Committee illegally work on his pals’ and his wife’s political campaigns.

 

You can read about what Conyers did by turning to the “Conyers Series” or “JC & Me” categories in joelontheroad.com.

Niemiec pitched the Conyers story to his editor. No interest.

 

Niemiec left the Free Press to become an aide to Wayne County Executive Bob Ficano early in January 2003. It happened that I knew Maher from my days before the 2005 Detroit newspaper strike, when I covered Wayne County governbment. I knew she was credible. I thought her story was big.

 

Incidentally, I want to emphasize that the main story was not about babysitting. It was about Conyers’ insistence that all staffers drop constituent and other services and work on campaigns during office hours while collecting their federal salaries.

I pitched the story about Conyer’s abuse of staffers to my editor. No interest.

Maher got no bites at the News, either.

 

Three strikes: The FBI spurned her. So did the Free Press. And the News.

 

Late in the summer of 2003, I got a call from Chris Christoff, a reporter in the Free Press Lansing Bureau. Did I know about Conyers using federally-paid staffers as political hacks?

 

I outlined what I knew and arranged for Chris to meet Maher. He was impressed with her and with her case. He persuaded his editor, Bob Campbell, that the story was important. We were in business.

 

Our Nov. 21, 2003 main story and sidebar prompted the House Ethics Committee to begin investigating Conyers.

 

It was Page One in the Free Press, but for some reason, the mainstream media left it alone. The New York Times reported Ethics Committee probes of mainly Republican congressmen during that time, but never mentioned Conyers, though the case was widely known on Capitol Hill. The Washington Post gave it a few paragraphs three and a half years later, in 2006, when stories about the Conyers’ using staffers as nannies were published.

 

In 2006, The Ethics Committee decided not to discipline Conyers. That same year, Conyers announced he was dropping his plan to impeach Bush.

 

I can see no evidence that the FBI targeted Conyers over any of this.

 

So no, Sam, you’re wrong. The FBI’s purpose now is not to embarrass John Conyers. If that had been their aim, they could have humiliated him plenty based on the information from Maher and other staffers six years ago, or they could have launched a probe using our 2003 Free Press reports as a roadmap.

 

They wouldn’t need to get at hubby through Monica. They could have pounced on the man himself.

 

Contact me at joelthurtell(at)gmail.com   

Posted in JC & Me | Tagged , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Aides: Conyers made us babysit

By Joel Thurtell

[donation]

Detroit City Councilwoman Monica Conyers is the target of an FBI investigation, according to the July 1, 2008 Detroit Free Press.

The FBI is looking into her role in a city sludge contract. But Monica Conyers has a history. As the wife of a congressman who was ranking minority member of the powerful House judiciary Committee, she managed to finagle what you and I would consider taxpayer-subsidized babysitting and law school tutoring services from congressional aides working on the government clock. Hubby is now chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

This article appears with permission of the Detroit Free Press

(c) 2006, Detroit Free Press.

Publication Date: 01-MAR-06

Headline: AIDES: CONYERS MADE US BABYSIT

Sub-Head: FORMER STAFFERS AIRING COMPLAINTS

Byline: BY JOEL THURTELL AND RUBY L. BAILEY FREE PRESS STAFF WRITERS

Pub-Date: 3/2/2006

Memo: SIDEBARS ATTACHED

Correction:

Text: Three former aides to U.S. Rep. John Conyers say the longtime Detroit congressman made them act as personal gofers and valets while they were supposed to be working in his Detroit-area offices.

Conyers ordered them to act as personal servants, tutoring and babysitting his two sons, helping his wife with a law class, and chauffeuring him to political and private events and picking up tabs at restaurants and motels, they said in interviews Wednesday and in complaints filed with the House Ethics Committee that were released this week.

The former Conyers employees who made the complaints are Deanna Maher, who was chief of staff of Conyers’ Downriver office in Southgate until May 31; Sydney Rooks, who was Conyers’ legal counsel from 1997 to 2000; and Dean Christian Thornton, a legislative aide who was fired in January.
Maher, who was a key unidentified source in a Free Press story published in November 2003 in which staffers alleged they were forced to work on political campaigns on government time, recently decided to go public with her charges.

Conyers was not available for comment Wednesday but his lawyer Stanley Brand, in Washington, said the congressman responded to the ethics committee’s questions two years ago when the committee began examining the allegations in the Free Press report.

“We have been fully forthcoming,” Brand said. The committee, which does not comment on pending investigations, could be continuing the probe “or decided it had no merit,” Brand said.

Brand would not address the allegations against Conyers.

“I’m not going to get into responding to these things,” he said.

Ethics committee rules prohibit members from using congressional funds to pay staffers for “nonofficial, personal or campaign activities on behalf of the member, the employee or anyone else.”

But vague job descriptions could leave room for the occasional personal request, said Peter Sepp, vice president of communications for the National Taxpayers Union, a Virginia-based watchdog group.

Maher said she reported Conyers because he was a hypocrite.

“The congressional members are supposed to be working for the people, for their constituents, and government has not been doing that,” Maher said Wednesday from her home in Holland.

Maher, 66, retired May 31 after working for the congressman for seven years.

Both Maher and Thornton have sent letters to the House Ethics Committee detailing the chores they performed at Conyers’ behest and also outlining chores done by other staffers.

Rooks, who now works for the nonprofit Cass Community Services in Detroit, said Wednesday that she talked to ethics committee staff about her concerns in 1999 and again in 2004 and plans to soon submit a formal complaint.

Conyers in 1998 summoned Maher to his house on 7 Mile in Detroit and ordered her to live there while his wife, Monica Conyers, attended law classes in Oklahoma, she told the Free Press. For six weeks, Maher said, she was a resident in the Conyers home taking care of Conyers’ two young sons while their mother was away.

This work was done on government time or Maher’s personal time. Maher said she drove the two boys to and from school at Cranbrook Academy in Bloomfield Hills in her own car, paying for the gas herself. When the boys were at school, Maher said, she stayed at the house, cleaning and doing laundry.

After picking up the boys at school, she brought them home, helped them with their class work, cooked meals for them and put them to bed.

Of Maher, Rooks said, “Mr. Conyers used her as a full-time live-in nanny for the boys during several weeks in 1998 while paying her regular part-time congressional salary.”

Rooks, too, said Conyers ordered her to tutor one of his sons.

For a full school year in 1997-98, Rooks said, one son would be picked up at Cranbrook by another staffer or by Rooks and brought back to the congressman’s office suite in the federal building, where Rooks would tutor him.

“I would go out of my way to talk to the kids – I like the kids a lot,” said Rooks. Later, she found “that is one of the reasons Conyers hired me.”
Rooks said Conyers also assigned her to help his wife, Monica Conyers, now a Detroit councilwoman, with her law school studies. Other attorneys in the
Washington offices of the Judiciary Committee, where Conyers is the ranking minority member and heads a large staff, were required to tutor her as well, said Rooks.

Sam Riddle, spokesman for Monica Conyers, said Wednesday that the councilwoman denies all the allegations.

“These are simply disgruntled employees who couldn’t cut it in the workplace,” he said.

While Thornton could not be reached to comment for this story, the Free Press did obtain his Jan. 15, 2004, letter to the ethics committee.
In it, he wrote that “my duties have been expected to not only chauffeur the congressman, but his children, his wife, other staff and any visitors” in addition to picking up “cleaning, organizing his personal belongings, lifting and carting heavy items.”

“I was always on call with him all day long,” said Thornton. “I was running around picking up his dry cleaning.”

Former Conyers staffer Paul Donahue, who is retired and worked in the offices of three Michigan congressmen, said Wednesday asking staffers to do personal chores is not unusual.

“It’s so common that nobody pays any attention to it,” said Donahue, who now lives in North Carolina. “Most people probably don’t realize it’s illegal.”

(SIDEBARS)

Congressional rules

Congress prohibits its members from:

•Requiring their employees to perform nonofficial, personal or campaign duties.•Retaining staffers who do not perform official duties commensurate with the compensation received.

But there are ways around some of the rules:

•Staffers can work on the campaigns of their bosses or other politicians if they take a leave of absence and are not paid with congressional funds. They may be compensated with campaign funds.

•Individual members establish duties for their employees. The definition of an official duty is not explicitly stated.

Some U.S. House ethics violations

•U.S. Rep. Charles Diggs, a Detroit Democrat, was censured by the House in 1979 after his conviction for taking kickbacks from employees. He resigned in 1980.

•U.S. Rep. James Traficant, an Ohio Democrat, was expelled from the House after his conviction in 2002 on nine counts of racketeering, bribery and tax evasion. He was found guilty of requiring staff members to do personal chores for him and kicking back to him a portion of their paychecks.

•In 1995, the Ethics Committee found “credible evidence” that U.S. Rep. Barbara-Rose Collins, a Detroit Democrat and now a city councilwoman, had committed 11 violations of ethics rules, including using campaign funds for personal use. She also was accused of using staffers as chauffeurs. Collins lost her 1996 re-election bid, and the committee did not take action.

Posted in Conyers series, JC & Me | Tagged , | 1 Comment

2 Conyers staffers at center of inquiry

By Joel Thurtell

[donation]

This is the third Detroit Free Press story I wrote about misuse of congressional staffers by U.S. Rep. John Conyers Jr. The first two stories appeared on Nov. 21, 2003 and are republished in the “Conyers series” category of joelontheroad.com with Free Press permission.

Despite denials from Conyers’ spokesmen, congressional payroll records indicate that Conyers legislative aide Glenn Osowski received his congressional paycheck during the time in late 2003 when he was working in Chicago on the campaign of presidential candidate Carol Mosely Braun.

Headline: 2 CONYERS STAFFERS AT CENTER OF INQUIRY

Sub-Head:

Byline: JOEL THURTELL

FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

Pub-Date: 4/10/2004

Memo: SIDEBAR ATTACHED

Correction:

Text:

A congressional committee investigation into U.S. Rep. John Conyers’ use of staff members for political campaign work may focus on the work of two staff members and several key incidents, a Conyers staff member said Friday.

Based on questions the staffers have been asked, the investigation of the

ethics committee of the U.S. House may focus on the campaign work done by

House Judiciary Committee staff attorney Lillian German and Conyers’ former

Washington staffer Glenn Osowski.

German, after her hiring in April 2003, almost immediately began working on

the successful Detroit City Council race of Conyers’ staffer JoAnn Watson. She

also worked in California to help defeat an issue on the ballot in the state’s

special gubernatorial race last fall.

Investigators also are interested in Osowski, a former Conyers aide hired

early in 2003 and assigned primarily to political campaign work, the staffer

said.

Last fall, when Conyers’ office workers believed Osowski was on a

congressional assignment, the Free Press tracked him down at the Chicago

campaign headquarters of then-presidential candidate Carol Moseley Braun. He

was working on Braun’s campaign.

The staff member who talked to the Free Press asked not to be named for fear

of dismissal. The staffer said the investigation began in January, when

committee investigators asked for written statements.

The informal investigation, which could lead to a full-scale probe, follows a

Nov. 21 Free Press article that quoted current and former Conyers staff

members who raised concerns about campaigning, fund-raising and use of office

equipment in Conyers’ offices.

Violations of House rules restricting campaigning on the job can lead to

censure, fines or — in rare cases — expulsion from the House.

Asking for political funds from a federal office is a violation of federal law

and rules of conduct published by the ethics committee.

The staffer who talked to the Free Press on Friday also said that

investigators want to probe “any and all congressional resources used for

campaign purposes and the congressman conducting campaign work from the

office.”

Conyers was not available for comment Friday.

Burt Wides, senior minority counsel on the House Judiciary Committee, said

Conyers and his staff are responding to the inquiry “appropriately,” but he

declined to elaborate.

“Committee investigations are supposed to be confidential,” said Wides. “I

wouldn’t want to violate that principle by talking about it.”

As ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee, Conyers is Wides’ boss.

The Free Press quoted staffers saying Conyers routinely assigned his office

workers to work on campaigns for state, county and local candidates, including

the 2002 state Senate campaign of Conyers’ wife Monica.

The Free Press reported that staffers in the 19-term Detroit Democrat’s office

have used government telephones, printers, fax machines and mailing lists to

solicit campaign contributions, organize fund-raisers and canvas for votes.

The probe by the ethics panel, known formally as the House Committee on

Standards of Official Conduct, was reported Thursday in Roll Call, a newspaper

covering Capitol Hill.

Ethics committee spokesman John Vargo said Friday he couldn’t comment.

Stan Brand, Conyers’ attorney in Washington, said, “Calling it an

investigation is a bit overstated. It’s a series of questions the committee

has asked us which we provided information to them in response to.”

“We’re cooperating in their inquiries,” said Brand.

He added, “I think this will all get resolved ultimately in our favor,” said

Brand.

FINDINGS

In late November, the Free Press reported that members of U.S. Rep. John

Conyers’ staff and two Judiciary Committee members who report to him

campaigned on government time and failed to keep track of their hours. Sources

for the report were current and former Conyers staffers who spoke on condition

of anonymity. Highlights:

* In last April’s special election for Detroit City Council, JoAnn Watson,

then on Conyers’ staff, worked on her own campaign during office hours, as did

House Judiciary Committee attorney Lillian German.

* In a special election for Wayne County Commission last June, German and

another Judiciary Committee staffer, Greg Barnes, worked on the campaign of

Keith Williams during office hours.

* Last fall, Conyers’ staffers were asked to transmit from government

computers the names of public officials who could be asked for campaign

donations for Conyers. Working from Williams’ Detroit office, staffer Glen

Osowski prepared mailings to potential contributors, although House rules

forbid use of congressional records for fund-raising.

* Late last year, Osowski was working in Chicago on the then-still-active

presidential campaign of Carol Moseley Braun for president on government time.

* A Conyers staffer and Judiciary Committee staffer worked on a fall 2003

campaign to defeat a California ballot proposal to ban the collection of

racial data.

Contact JOEL THURTELL at joelthurtell@gmail.com.

Caption:

Members of U.S. Rep. John Conyers’ office are cooperating.

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

Times public editor “over the top”?

By Joel Thurtell


Well, Clarkie’s been at it again.


I was hoping that after a couple of my punitive columns, New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt would have seen the light.


After my onslaughts, I can’t understand why he hasn’t backed off on his heavy-handed literary assaults on writers for the Times.


Well, doggone, he doesn’t seem to hear me.


But Clarkie’s most recent sniping misfired, at least for me. I found it funny that he should describe the writing of Times columnist Maureen Dowd as “over the top.”


I’ll bet Dowd, by far the most acerbic of the Times pundits, was laughing, too. Well, then again, maybe not.


I mean, what does Clark Hoyt think Dowd gets paid for — boring her readers?


If they want to fall asleep, Times subscribers can always turn to the National or Business sections, two of the finest soporifics invented by humankind.


For that matter, other than Frank Rich, Paul Krugman and William Kristol, and, of course, Dowd, Times columnists fall definitely under the top, to purloin and pervert Hoyt’s metaphor.


The public editor was responding in his June 22, 2008 Times op-ed column to criticisms by supporters of failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton that sexism marred much of the media coverage of Senator Clinton’s campaign.


The National Organization for Women has created a “Media Hall of Shame” for writers whose Hillary coverage NOW considers sexist.


NOW placed Dowd and Kristol in their Hall of Shame. Kristol was honored for comments he made outside the Times. For that reason, presumably, Hoyt ignores Kristol in his column.


Hmmm. The public editor chooses to ignore the transgressions of the male columnist who’s been pilloried for his allegedly sexist remarks? He focuses exclusively on the female columnist? Again, hmmm — because the woman’s rants appeared in the Times and the guy’s ravings showed up somewhere else?


Maybe NOW needs to add Hoyt to its Hall of Shame.


But I digress.


Hoyt indicts Dowd for writing columns “so loaded with language painting her (Clinton) as a 50-foot woman with a suffocating embrace, a conniving film noir dame and a victim dependent on her husband that they could easily have been listed” in a June 13 Times article about sexism in political coverage that did mention Kristol along with other journalists like Chris Mathews, Mike Barnicle and Tucker Carlson.


Apparently the June 13 Times writers managed to let Dowd slip through their fingers. Hoyt was not about to let her skate. He assigned his assistant along with some journalism school types to analyze Times coverage to see if it was sexist. Overall, the academics opined, it was not, other than for a reference to Clinton wearing a “no-nonsense pantsuit” and another that said she “shouted” into a microphone. Or there was the comment in a Times story that Hillary “may not have passed the commander in chief test” in the minds of voters. Oh my.


In other words, nada. But nonetheless, Hoyt requested — and got — justifications from editors.


At the Detroit Free Press, when top editors or the publisher would pretend to critique the paper, staffers’ written responses to the brass’s queries were called “forced confessions.”


And yes, Hoyt presents several forced confessions, including one from Dowd herself.


“From the time I began writing about politics, I have always played with gender stereotypes and mined them and twisted them to force the reader to be conscious of how differently we view the sexes. You are asking me to treat Hillary differently than I’ve treated the male candidates all these years, with kid gloves” Dowd told Hoyt, who passed it on to us.


A fair enough response. But I’m sorry she made it. Readers mostly are unaware that Dowd really had no choice: She was compelled to respond to Hoyt. She is – despite being a highly visible Times columnist — still an employee whose paycheck is cut by people who demand obeisance, even from tart-tongued commentators.


What about Dowd’s First Amendment rights? Hah! Glad you asked. Talk about Halls of Shame. Newspapers and media in general have managed to deceive people into thinking their reporters are personifications of First Amendment principles. That they have created that illusion is their true shame.


Yes, the public has been deceived into thinking that newspapers like the Times are pillars of First Amendment righteousness. In fact, while the OWNERS of newspapers enjoy free speech rights, their employees do not. In fact, I have a letter from the management of Gannett, owner of the Detroit Free Press where I worked until a few months ago, stating unequivocally that employees (reporters, editors, photographers, et. al.) of private institutions like the Free Press (and yes, these words apply to the Times, too) do not enjoy First Amendment rights.


So Dowd did not have a right to refuse comment, which would be the inverse of the First Amendment. In other words, if you have First Amendment rights, you have the right to express yourself, or not.


The “or not” — the “no comment” option — is not in the equation for newspaper employees, and woe unto an employee to speaks his/her mind in way that annoys management.


So here we have the outspoken columnist who projects an aura of untrammeled freedom of expression actually being coerced into making a self-defending statement.


Demeaning, but in the newspaper owners’ worldview, necessary to maintain order.


Finally, in Hoyt’s column, after all the phony “analysis” by sanctimonious academics, forced confessions by editors and Dowd herself, Hoyt pronounces his dictum: Dowd, “by assailing Clinton in gender-heavy terms in column after column, went over the top this election season.”


I’m sorry to say, I don’t have an assistant. I don’t have access to a university journalism department for freebie research services. And I certainly can’t mentally bludgeon anyone into responding to my queries.


But still, I’d like to know: What does it mean for a journalist to go “over the top this election season”?


Would “over the top” be something different in another “election season”?


What it boils down to is this: The Times pays Dowd to write a witty. saucy, cantankerous and highly entertaining column.


Why? Because it wakes readers up. They may not agree with her. She may annoy them. But she makes them think.


For chrissake, Clark, isn’t that what it’s about?


Maybe it’s Hoyt who’s over the top.

 

Why not just show some guts and tell interest groups like NOW as well as the Christian right — all of whom are pursuing some political agenda — to take their halls of shame or whatever the political gambit du jour might be and stick it where the sun don’t shine?


Contact me at joelthurtell@gmail.com

 

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

Bye-bye, yak

By Joel Thurtell


Obituary time at the Detroit Free Press: That venerable promotional creature, the furry, goofy Yak, is dead.


Word from inside the Freep is that this popular creature an educational feature aimed at kids, part of it contained in the comics  — and the award-winning reporting that were part of the Yak persona  have been scrapped to cut costs as the paper seeks to cut its workforce by 150.


The Yak joins other main features of the paper like the Sunday Twist women’s magazine and the suburban Sunday editions known as the Community Free Press on the scrap heap.


I also hear advertisers are not happy to learn that their promos are being switched from Twist to the main Sunday paper at higher rates.


How ’bout a little Bait and Twist?


Meanwhile, I also hear Freep ad reps are angry because the customers they’ve been cultivating for several years are losing their forum in the local CFP Sunday sections and will be lumped into some form of faux journalistic product the Free Press honchos are calling “advertorial boilerplate.” It’s to be a throwaway with “news” that’s not focused on any community. The newspaper counterpart to junk mail.


While I was still a reporter with the CFP, I sat in a meeting last year with a top ad exec from Gannett’s Detroit Media Partnership who sketched out a pretty dire picture of what it was like to sell Free Press ads. He used the word “churn” to describe how hard it was to sell small businesses an ad for more than a week.


Despite all the doom-and-gloom talk about dwindling ads, the local CFPs still have advertisers. But staffers were told the CFPs are “underwater,” meaning they’re losing money. So those advertisers — many of them small, local enterprises — now will have their ads placed in a shopperlike slick.


Advertorial boilerplate? Bye-bye, advertisers. Reminds me of the hash Gannett and Knight-Ridder made of the Joint Operating Agreement, aka newspaper monopoly, back in 1989. Advertisers got steamed then too, when they found their rates were being jacked up.


Everything that identified the Free Press as a unique publication now is being scrapped.


Now the Free Press is not unique. The New York Times has cut staff, the San Francisco Chronicle is losing $1 million a day, and that gothic monument on Chicago’s Magnificent Mile is for sale to raise cash for the cash-starved Chicago Tribune.


But here in Detroit, with the auto companies in what looks like free fall, newspaper advertising is dwindling fast.


Scariest of all is the notion that emerged from a recent staff meeting that Free Press brass have no idea what they’re doing. They are searching for a plan, but don’t have one. Editor Paul Anger reportedly told staffers, “We need a new business model. We need a new approach to presenting information.”


Counting the 110 buyouts of last fall and the 150 Gannett is looking for now, the compound reduction amounts to roughly 13 percent off the 2007 staff level.


They will be shedding workers with no plan for the future.


Well, that’s not quite true.


“Web first,” Anger told staffers. “We’re going to keep adding to the Web staff.”


Last I heard, nationwide, newspapers were getting 95 percent of their revenue from print ads and 5 percent from Web ads.


They need to figure how to make money from the Web.


It’s like tearing down your house to live in a cardboard shack.


Contact me at joelthurtell(at)gmail.com

Posted in future of newspapers | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Free Press or fish wrapper?

By Joel Thurtell

Could Michigan’s oldest newspaper become a tabloid?

 

Hey, it could be worse.

 

The Detroit Free Press could wind up just as its top editors now envision it — a skimpy rag for home subscribers who pay for it and something slightly more substantial as a freebie on the web.

 

Isn’t that what they’re doing now?

 

Believe me, folks, if the hotshots on West Jefferson have their way, you won’t recognize the venerable Free Press.

 

I know, things haven’t been the same since Knight-Ridder’s Free Press joined Gannett’s  Detroit News in a federally-approved monopoly in 1989.

 

I know, too, that things haven’t been the same since Gannett and Knight-Ridder pushed the unions to strike in 1995, hoping to squash organized labor at the newspapers and make life easier and cheaper ever after for the owners. The companies lost hundreds of thousands of readers, but the unions are still there.

 

Their latest game plan — though they don’t seem to know it — is to just disappear.

 

First, of course, editors Paul Anger and Caesar Andrews propose “to rethink how we report, edit and present information.” How many times have we heard that one? “Re-thinking the Free Press” was the mantra of onetime Freep publisher Carole Leigh Hutton just before her pals, the bosses of now-defunct Knight-Ridder, sold the Free Press to Gannett.

 

And I love this line  from the Anger-Andrews June 23 memo to Freepsters: “Many staffers will be actively involved, and we welcome input or questions from all — starting now.”

 

“Starting now.” Or else?

 

Maybe if they’d tried to mine ideas from employees before this, they wouldn’t have got themselves into this jam. Right. Come on, this is corporate America. Top-down is the way it always works. Or in this case, apparently, doesn’t work.

 

Hard to imagine workers willingly putting their heads together when management just announced they want to usher 150 more staffers out the door and if they don’t get that many, layoffs could be the answer.

 

But the brains of West Jeff have bad news for everyone: If you’re paying to have the Free Press delivered right now, here’s what you’re likely to find in that plastic tube, and this comes before the double A’s even start rethinking: “We’re heading toward a Free Press that will emphasize a combination of quickly absorbed information with tighter writing and editing and commitment to enterprising reporting. We’ve been working with DMP (Detroit Media Partnership, the business side of the News and Free Press) folks on concepts for a compact, contemporary Free Press that offers excellent content in a smaller, easily absorbed product with dynamic design to support that approach.”

 

Wow. I need to pause for breath. “Compact.” “Contemporary.” “Dynamic.”

 

If it’s “enterprise” in reporting you want, don’t talk to the geniuses in DMP. Better consult with the reporters you’re showing the door.

 

Sounds like tabloid to me.

 

Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick’s steamy text messages would feel right at home.

 

Hard to believe that, after shedding 260 workers in the past roughly half year, there will be enough bodies left to clean the johns, let alone create a compact, contemporary and dynamic newspaper. 

 

I forgot: Gannett closed most of the johns months ago. So that’s not a worry. And if the county health department approves Gannett’s rethought proposal for a series of outhouses on West Lafayette, why, staffers can quit complaining about the dearth of toilets, too.

 

The outhouse plan poses a problem of its own, though, because of this sentence in the AA boys’ memo: “We’ll use much less newsprint, we’ll stop doing more things in print, and we’ll put more information on the Web.”

 

Get it? No newsprint, no toilet paper for those outhouses. The Web is many things, but you can’t make it wipe.

 

Okay, I’m just kidding about the outhouses.  I don’t THINK Gannett would stoop that low.

 

“Much less newsprint.” In the past three years, they’ve reduced news space by roughly 35 percent. How can they cut the paper’s size further and still call it a newspaper?

 

I’m getting ahead of myself. These guys have it covered. “We’re going to implement a sequence of news meetings that emphasize what we’re doing for the Web at any given minute. We’ll create a central hub for assignment editors for print and Web so they can work side-by-side and communicate more easily. We’ll have a new system for long-range planning, and we’ll have some new job descriptions.”

 

“A sequence of news meetings” — right. Meetings with whom? Thirteen percent of the workforce will be gone. Meetings. If you’re incompetent, call a meeting. Get more incompetents to share the culpability. Ford Motor Co. holds lots of management meetings, I hear. But hey, they’re good till 2010, right?

 

A “new system for long-range planning”? That implies they had a system before. If you shed 13 percent of your people in half a year, you didn’t have a plan. I worked at the Free Press 23 years and never saw signs of more than hand-to-mouth survivalism, which is not planning — it’s called “feed the beast.” But maybe planning will be easier with all those people gone.

 

“New job descriptions”?  You dump 260 positions in half a year and still need new job descriptions?

Why not just give everyone a broom and call them janitors?

 

I’m trying to conjure a picture of that “central hub” when there’s nobody left to revolve around it.

 

“The Web is our priority, our future,” according to A2. “Our changing newsroom will mean more resources devoted to the Web in all departments and Web-first thinking as our instinct without exception. We’ll have a planning structure that won’t let Web thinking fall through the cracks anywhere in the newsroom. We’ve come a long way, our traffic is soaring, and we’re going into overdrive.”

 

Wow. “Overdrive.” If I’m not mistaken, that’s lingo straight from the American car industry. Not a fit metaphor of success these days.

 

I’ve said this so many times I’m getting tired of it: Why would anyone pay for a product that is being downsized out of existence?

 

That is what these “rethinkers” haven’t thought of. What they’re really talking about is squeezing more and more quality out of the newspaper. They wonder why people aren’t buying their Free Press. Easy: They’re foisting a shoddier and shoddier product on the public. People won’t pay for junky newspapers, same as they’re flocking to Honda and Toyota. People are too smart to go on paying for a bad deal. Unlike the Japanese carmakers, though, we don’t have to pay for Internet news.

 

I was glad to see the double A guys end on a really upbeat note.  True, they’ll soon be down 260 people.

“We will have some new job opportunities for the staff members who stay.”

 

Bring your own mop and pail.

 

Contact me at joelthurtell(at)gmail.com   

 

Posted in future of newspapers | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Disappearing staffer turns up in Chicago

The story that follows — “Disappearing staffer turns up in Chicago” — is the second in a series of articles I reported and wrote for the Detroit Free Press in 2003-2006. My hope is that these seemingly historical footnotes will shed some light on doings and relationships involved with the text message scandal involving Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick.

This story was a sidebar to the main Detroit Free Press story Nov. 21, 2003 detailing how U.S. Rep. John Conyers Jr. used his federally-paid staffers to work on the campaigns of his political favorites, including wife Monica Conyers. Monica Conyers, who eventually got elected with hubby’s considerable help, is now a Detroit city council member and chief defender of Kilpatrick.

A major unnamed source for these stories was Deanna Maher, then chief of staff of Conyers’ Downriver office. Maher has since gone on the record. Before bringing her allegations to the Free Press late in 2002, Maher laid everything out for agents of the FBI in Detroit. They did nothing.

When a previous Detroit congressman, Charles Diggs, used congressional staffers to do personal work in his family funeral home, he was indicted, charged and convicted of various counts of fraud. I will be writing about the case and comparing it to Conyers’ behavior.

I’ve always wondered, and maybe some savvy reader can help me here, what is the difference between assigning a federally-paid employee to work in a mortuary and ordering someone on government time to campaign for a politician in, say, Chicago?

Perhaps I should not be surprised that the FBI and Justice Department ignored allegations about the then ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee who is now that panel’s chairman. But it’s interesting to note that The New York Times, which for a long period liked to pontificate about the lack of spine in the House Ethics Committee, never once reported that Conyers was a subject of inquiry with the ethics committee. Wonder why.

Remember, too, that Conyers is the guy who wants, supposedly, to impeach President George W. Bush. The old saw about glass houses comes to mind. Wonder if these allegations and the House Ethics probe of Conyers had anything to do with Conyers backburnering the impeachment?

Despite denials from Conyers’ staff, congressional payroll records indicate Osowski was paid throughout the time he was working for Braun in Chicago.

This story appears with permission of the Detroit Free Press

Headline: DISAPPEARING STAFFER TURNS UP IN CHICAGO

AIDE LEFT DETROIT FOR BRAUN’S CAMPAIGN

Sub-Head:Byline: JOEL THURTELL FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

Pub-Date: 11/21/2003

Memo: SIDEBAR; SEE MAIN STORY ON PAGE 1A AND RELATED SIDEBAR ON PAGE 7A

Correction:Text:

Where was Glenn?

That was the question on the minds of staffers in U.S. Rep. John Conyers’Detroit office last week as legislative assistant Glenn Osowski was nowhere tobe found and didn’t answer his cell phone.

It was also a question for Dearborn attorney Richard Wygonik, who was countingon Osowski as Conyers’ go-to man for planning a Nov. 14 health forum inDearborn.

Wygonik was exasperated. He needed to find Osowski to work out final details but couldn’t get a straight answer other than “now he’s in Chicago for somereason.”

At Conyers’ Detroit office, aide Barbara Herard told the Free Press on Nov.13: “He’s on another assignment. He’s not in town.”

Osowski was in Chicago working on the presidential campaign of Carol MoseleyBraun.

The incident illustrates how constituents can be failed when congressionalaides mix campaign work and office duties.

Burton Wides, a spokesman for Conyers, said working on campaigns oftenadvances issues Conyers, a civil rights champion, cares most about. “It’s a positive, not a negative,” Wides said.

He said Osowski went to Chicago on Nov. 7-9 to work for Braun on his own time and then took vacation from Nov. 13 through Dec. 1 to continue working for Braun. Osowski joined Conyers’ staff in January.

Several Conyers staffers who spoke on condition of anonymity said Osowski has been working for Braun most of this month.

Still, Osowski wasn’t trumpeting his campaign work.

The Free Press called his cell phone on the morning of Nov. 13.

Osowski first said he was in Washington, then said he was traveling and on vacation “visiting my sick parents.” He said he was in the Midwest, but not in Detroit.

A few hours later, the Free Press called Braun’s campaign headquarters in Chicago, asked for Osowski and got him.

“I’m on vacation,” he said. “I stopped here at the office. I’m not working for the Braun campaign.”

Seconds later, Osowski clarified: “How did you know that I worked for the Braun campaign?”

Then: “Who says I’m working on the Braun campaign?”

“I’m a volunteer on Carol Moseley Braun’s campaign,” he said. “I’m on vacation from Conyers. How did you find out I was working here? I mean, volunteering here.”

Asked about his his sick parents, Osowski insisted that he would visit them in Milwaukee.

Posted in Conyers series, JC & Me | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Conyers’ staff broke rules for campaign work, aides charge

This is the first of a series of stories reported largely by me between 2003-2006 on the behavior of U.S. Rep. John Conyers, a past master at ordering his taxpayer-paid staffers to work on political campaigns and act as his personal servants. The house Ethics Committee actually investigated Conyers’ abuses as a result of the Nov. 21, 2003 Detroit Free Press stories. In 2006 the congressman — big surprise! — was let off the hook. What the Free Press published nearly five years ago is relevant today, as two Detroit City Council members — Conyers’ wife, Monica and former Conyers aide JoAnn Watson — maneuver in the Kwamegate text message scandal. In the coming days, I’ll be posting more of these stories. Please let me know — is history relevant, or not?

This story appears with permission of the Detroit Free Press

(c) 2003, Detroit Free Press

Publication Date: 21-NOV-03

Headline: CONYERS’ STAFF BROKE RULES FOR CAMPAIGN WORK, AIDES CHARGE
BUT OTHERS DENY THAT FUND-RAISING WAS DONE ON GOVERNMENT TIME

Sub-Head:

Byline: JOEL THURTELL, CHRIS CHRISTOFF AND RUBY L. BAILEY FREE PRESS STAFF WRITERS

Pub-Date: 11/21/2003

Memo: A FREE PRESS INVESTIGATION; SEE CHART SHOWING TRAVEL EXPENSES IN MICROFILM, PAGE 6A; SEE ALSO SIDEBARS PAGE 7A.

Correction: CORRECTION RAN NOVEMBER 25,
2003.

* IN A FRONT-PAGE ARTICLE FRIDAY ABOUT U.S. REP. JOHN
CONYERS’ USE OF HIS STAFF FOR POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS, STAN BRAND WAS
MISIDENTIFIED. THE ARTICLE SHOULD HAVE SAID HE IS A FORMER SPECIAL
COUNSEL TO THE U.S. HOUSE ETHICS COMMITTEE.

Text: U.S. Rep. John Conyers and his top aides have assigned his congressional staff to work on political campaigns while they were on government time and sometimes in government offices, staff members say.

That violates U.S. House ethics rules and, in some cases, may be illegal.

Staffers for the 19-term Detroit 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.

This report is 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.

House Judiciary Committee attorney Burton Wides, who spoke for Conyers, denied any wrongdoing. He acknowledged that many staffers work on political campaigns for other Democrats and for causes Conyers supports, but he said they use compensatory time or work after hours and on weekends.

Conyers was not available for an interview.

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. The recent campaigns include:

* In 2003, the April City Council race of JoAnn Watson, who was then on his
staff; the June run for WayneCounty Commission by Keith Williams, and an
effort last month to defeat a California ballot proposal to ban the collection
of racial data.

* In 2002, Jennifer Granholm’s bid for governor; Robert Ficano’s run for Wayne County executive; Kevin Kelley’s campaign in western Wayne County for Congress, and the failed race of Conyers’ wife, Monica, for a Detroit state
Senate seat.

Accusations and denials

Ray Plowden, head of Conyers’ Detroit office, denied that any campaigning or
fund-raising has occurred in Conyers’ office.

” No, no, no, no fund-raising, no campaign work,” he said. “I tell people they
can’t do any fund-raising out of that congressional office.”

But a staff member insisted, “Fund-raising has been done from the offices. I
was part of it.”

Interviews with the six current and former Conyers staffers portray an office
where campaign work often supersedes daily official responsibilities. They
said campaigning is often done on nights and weekends, but during working
hours there is no effort to distinguish between political campaigning and
congressional duties.

One staffer described the pervasive nature of the campaigning, describing work done for Conyers’ wife, Monica, 39, in her failed state Senate primary
campaign last summer.

“He had us all work on Monica Conyers’ campaign. We were dedicated to that
campaign. The district office was empty.”

The staffer added: “Conyers and Plowden said for the next two weeks, ‘I don’t
want you to think about anything but the campaign.’ What are we doing about
constituents? I’ve got a lady who doesn’t have any heat. It’s frustrating.”

Plowden denied that staffers were ordered to work on campaigns.

“I would never say that,” he said.

Despite the political cachet of her last name, Monica Conyers lost the primary
to Samuel (Buzz) Thomas, a popular state representative.

Imperfect record-keeping

John Conyers, 74, first elected in 1964 and the second most senior member of
the House, is a cofounder of the Congressional Black Caucus and a leading
voice for civil rights, affirmative action and liberal causes. He is the
ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee and in line to become its chairman if Democrats win the House in 2004.

Wides said Conyers is more actively involved in other people’s campaigns than many in Congress, and that he encourages his staff to help campaigns that he believes advance social issues and values he thinks are important. Conyers has been in a safe district all of his political career — winning every
re-election by more than 90 percent.Congressional staffers commonly work on political campaigns. But House ethics rules require that they do so on their
free time and that they “should keep careful records documenting the campaign work was not done on official time.”

Plowden acknowledged that such records were not kept and that it was up to
individuals to keep track of their hours worked.

Plowden said staff members often work extra hours evenings and on weekends for which they aren’t paid, and can use those compensatory hours or vacation time to work on campaigns at any time.

He said vacation time varies, based on work performance, but that the average vacation time is two weeks annually.

Plowden is on leave working full time for the presidential bid of U.S. Rep.
Dick Gephardt, D-Missouri.

Wides bristled when asked for records showing when staffers worked official
hours and campaign hours and took vacations.

“You’re not going to see anything,” he said. “You’re going to do a hatchet
job, and we’re not going to let you go fishing.”

Political work

Based on the interviews with former and current staffers and records, here’s a
detailed look at how Conyers used staff to work on two Detroit political races
and to raise money for his office.

April 29, 2003
Detroit City Council race

Conyers staffers and Judiciary Committee aides worked this spring 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 former 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 been 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 Watson 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; 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.

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 before she was sworn in as a council member. Watson declined
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.”

Stan Brand, an attorney for the House Ethics Committee, said it would be
normal for a House staff member who runs for elected office to take an unpaid leave to campaign.

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.

June 3, 2003
Wayne County Commission race

Conyers’ staff was quickly called on again — for Keith Williams, a candidate
running in a special election for a Detroit seat on the Wayne County
Commission.

Williams was in a tough race against Cheryl Cushingberry, a political activist
and sister-in-law of former state representative and county Commissioner
George Cushingberry.

Cheryl Cushingberry said she discovered that people at some public campaign
appearances were Conyers’ staffers, including German and Judiciary Committee attorney Greg Barnes.

“I was campaigning not just against Williams, but against Conyers,” she said.

German spent significant time in the Detroit area. Wides said she worked on
issues related to the Judiciary Committee such as alleged police brutality,
reparations for descendants of black slaves and funding for Detroit schools,
but a staffer said German spent much of her time working on campaigns of
interest to Conyers.

In fact, German was reimbursed for $1,000 in travel expenses in June by
Conyers’ campaign finance account, not from the budget of her employer, the
House Judiciary Committee, campaign finance records show.

German declined comment.

September 2003
Fund-raising

In late summer, Conyers told key aides that the staff needed to raise campaign
funds.

In late September, Plowden sent e-mails, one of which was obtained by the Free Press, to staffers on office time asking them to transmit from government computers names of public officials who could be solicited for donations.

Another Conyers staffer, Osowski, was working temporarily out of the office of Williams, the new county commissioner. He asked in October that Conyers’
staffers on office time fax him mailing lists kept on congressional computers
of potential contributors, including many local officials, using a
congressional office fax machine. Osowski was sending invitations to movers
and shakers who were asked to donate between $250 and $500 at an Oct. 13
fund-raiser for Conyers in the Tiger Den restaurant at Comerica Park.

House ethics rules say such lists “may not be shared with a member’s campaign committee, any other campaign entity, or otherwise be used for campaign purposes.”

Posted in Conyers series, JC & Me | Tagged , | 2 Comments