Determination
113
Minnesota
News Council
In the Matter of the Complaint of
Robert Herickhoff against
The Mankato Free Press
Attending the hearing were the complainant, Robert
Herickhoff, a former Lake Crystal-Wellcome Memorial School Board member
and Dave Jones, current school board member and Deb Flemming, editor
of The Free Press, the respondent.
Background:
On August 12, 1997, the Lake Crystal-Wellcome Memorial School Board
voted to place a bond-sale referendum on the ballot to finance a new
school. The vote took place at a study session of the school board.
The Free Press did not have a reporter in attendance at the
study session, but was told of the vote by Bill James, Blue Earth
County Recorder and a leader of the opposition to the bond sale, who
challenged the vote as illegal because it took place at a study session
and not at a regular meeting.
It was customary for this school board to call "study
sessions" when a meeting will be focusing on a single issue.
This study session had been announced at the previous meeting, had
been advertised in the local paper (Lake Crystal Tribune),
and was well attended.
Robert Herickhoff, a physics teacher at Mankato State
University and a school board member at the time of the disputed vote,
complained to the paper. He was offered editorial space for his views,
which ran unedited as a "My View" piece on September 16.
However, Herickhoff felt the editorial was insufficient remedy because
The Free Press refused to acknowledge that it was wrong to
characterize the school board's actions as it did.
Herickhoff believes that The Free Press created
an atmosphere of suspicion that could have contributed to the defeat
of the bond issue in November. The bond sale was intended to replace
the existing high school, which would become the middle school. The
current middle school must close by September if it does not get a
sprinkler system. Since the bond referendum was defeated, 35 students
(out of 1,200) have applied to other school districts, which will
mean the loss of state aid, teachers and programs. Herickhoff lost
his bid for re-election.
Complaint:
Herickhoff complained that The Free Press's coverage of the
issue misled the public and unfairly impugned the reputation of school
board members. He charged that The Free Press did not check
the veracity of the allegation of voting illegality before publishing
the accusation and that, given the uncertainty of the legal status
of the vote, the paper should not have published a front-page story.
He said that, contrary to the editorial's assertion, the study session
was well advertised, well attended and did not involve "secrecy
and behind-the-scenes arm twisting." Finally, he complained that
the follow-up article again suggested that the board may have acted
illegally.
Response of the News Outlet:
Deb Flemming of The Free Press responded that news stories
were fair and accurate and that the editorial was legitimate criticism
of the way the school board handled this particular matter. The reporter
did check the accuracy of the allegations, and several people were
quoted in the first article, including the school superintendent who
said that the board vote was legal.
The Free Press believes that Herickhoff's "My
View" piece provided ample opportunity for him to disagree with
the paper's editorial position. The Free Press denied that
their articles or editorial defamed any school board members.
Discussion:
Council member Nedra Wicks, a former school board member, pointed
out that part of the dilemma came from the use of the term "study
session." She asked editor Flemming if the paper had looked at
the district's past practices of voting during study sessions. Flemming
said that they became aware of it after the editorial was written.
Council member John Kostorous asked Flemming if she
thought or had any reason to think that the voting procedure was illegal.
She said yes, but the practice hasn't been challenged in the courts.
Flemming said James' challenge of the district's practice of voting
at study sessions was appropriate, and something the paper should
cover. The paper sought comment from a variety of authoritative sources,
quoting Superintendent Stan Ries and Minnesota School Board Association
deputy executive director Mike Torkelson, both suggesting it was not
best practice. The board itself, at its next meeting, decided to re-vote
on the issue and started its November 18 meeting saying that no votes
would be taken at study sessions.
Council member Tom Keller asked Herickhoff why the
issue had been re-voted. Herickhoff responded that the Board didn't
want to argue about it, that it was easier to just do it over.
Two Council members asked if The Free Press
had published anything about the study session itself. Flemming said
no, the articles and editorial were published only after the second
meeting and the charge of illegality. Council member Jim Pumarlo asked
Flemming if the paper had written an editorial about the referendum
itself. Flemming did not recall that they had done so.
Herickhoff complained that the reporter identified
Bill James as the Blue Earth County Recorder, but not as the leader
of the anti-bonding group. Herickhoff said James' position in the
county gave him undue credibility and was not relevant to the charges,
but his opposition to the bonding bill was relevant and it was not
mentioned. When Council member Ron Handberg asked Flemming if she
felt the reporter had an obligation to disclose that, Flemming said
"That's another story."
Council member Don Smith asked why none of the school
board members who voted to put the referendum on the ballot were contacted
or quoted. Flemming said she didn't know. When asked if the school
board members had responded to the verbal challenge James made at
the August 20 meeting, which the reporter attended, school board member
Dave Jones said that it is the practice of the board not to respond
immediately and individually but simply to listen to citizens and
then to wait a week to consider the issues raised.
Council member Trish Van Pilsum asked Herickhoff why,
given that the bond referendum had failed in the past, he thought
that its failure this time was attributable to The Free Press
coverage. Herickhoff acknowledged that it might have failed again
anyway, but "when you get blasted in the paper, and pictured
as a bunch of scuzzballs acting secretly, why should they vote for
something you want?"
Smith asked Herickhoff why the publication of his
lengthy editorial did not resolve the problem. Herickhoff said it
was not given the prominence the original front-page article had and
that the paper had delayed printing his commentary for so long that
public opinion had crystallized around the issue. "You just can't
undue that. If the paper says three or four times that things aren't
right in Lake Crystal, people believe that."
Pumarlo asked Flemming if the reporter was aware that
there were so many people attending this study session, and further,
if it was responsible to represent it in the editorial as a "smoke
filled room," and secretive. Flemming said the reporter was aware
of the large numbers present at the session. She said that the paragraph
in question was a general statement about the mandate for openness
in government and that the Free Press has a strong editorial voice.
Determination:
Council members believed the paper should have identified that James,
the primary source for the article, had a vested interest. Van Pilsum
agreed but added, "regardless of where James' falls on the issue,
he raises a valid point."
Council member Ann Barkelew, a former teacher, expressed
concern about the lack of context, given that the paper had not covered
the issues raised at the study session or the referendum. Handberg
added his concerns that the reporter also did not report on the high
visibility and good attendance of the meeting. Council member Nancy
Conner, while agreeing that a depth of context was lacking, yet found
nothing wrong with the stories themselves.
Members were also concerned that the impression created
by the editorial - that the August 12 meeting was secretive in nature
- was far from accurate. "The whole reason for an article like
this is 'The school board is trying to slip something past us.' There's
no justification for this tone. No one is giving any evidence,"
said Kostorous. "For the paper to say 'We didn't say it,' is
a cop-out." Conner praised the editorial, saying that the role
of a newspaper is to support the democratic process and that's what
it was doing with its editorial.
The Council upheld the complaint that The Mankato
Free Press was unfair in its coverage of the Lake Crystal-Wellcome
School Board's process of placing the bond-sale referendum on the
ballot in the two articles and one editorial cited.
Concurring: Amaris, Barkelew, Handberg, Hoben,
Keller, Kostouros, Sellers, Seltzer, Wicks
Dissenting: Conner, Cytron, Pumarlo, Smith, Van Pilsum
Abstaining: Anderson
Dissenting Opinion: Conner, Cytron, Pumarlo,
Smith, Van Pilsum
We believe The Free Press did give its readers
fair and balanced coverage of citizen objections to the Lake Crystal-Wellcome
Memorial School Board vote taken at a "study session." Did
the paper's three pieces contain every possible piece of information
about the situation? No, of course not. But the coverage included
viewpoints from both sides on a clear-cut issue: whether the board
was representing its citizens in a democratic decision-making process.
The first story lays out the key elements: that the
board took its vote during a gathering labeled as a study session,
rather than a regular meeting; that a citizen appeared at the board's
next meeting to raise objections to the study session vote; that the
Minnesota School Board Association's spokesman told the reporter that
votes ought not be taken at a study session; and that the superintendent
defended his board's action as legal. There's clearly balance in this
report.
The editorial takes a strong stand for governmental
openness, but it also points out that "it seems the board acted
with in the letter of the law." Although the editorial may have
overstated the secrecy of the study session, it should be remembered
that it simply represents an opinion. Finally, the next news story
reports the board voted a second time on the referendum, this time
at a special meeting.
Although Mr. Herickhoff maintained at the News Council
hearing that it was publicly known the board might vote at the study
session, the initial story included a wrote from a school board member
saying, "We had been looking at the issue, but nothing was said
this was the night we were going to make a decision."
As for the suggestion at the News Council hearing
that the newspaper hadn't covered that school board's meetings for
many months and showed up only when someone tipped it off that allegations
would be aired, it should be noted that newspapers such as The
Free Press, which have dozens of governmental units in their readership
area, literally cannot cover all meetings. But the newspaper hardly
could have ignored this issue once a citizen had raised it. His allegations
were voiced at a public meeting where the board could respond directly,
and the board had more than two months before the referendum vote
to address any remaining citizen concerns. Did The Free Press
provide citizens with fair coverage? We believe it did.
Addendum: Council member Nedra Wicks suggested
that best practice on the part of the school board to avoid future
problems would be to provide the paper with better information on
all its meetings, along with an agenda and action items to be voted
upon.
February 14, 1997
Read
Determination 114
Back
to Main Determination Index
Back
to News Council Main
Page
Want
to comment? Send a message
to the News Council.
