Determination
123
Minnesota
News Council
In the Matter of the Complaint of
Dr. Morris Kurtz, St. Cloud State University Athletic Director
against the St. Cloud Times
Participants included the complainant, Morris Kurtz,
accompanied by the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities' vice
chancellor for human resources, Bill Tschida; from the St. Cloud Times,
Susan Ihne, executive editor, and Dave DeLand, sports editor.
Background:
In March 1999, 16-year veteran coach Noel Martin's employment
contract with SCSU was not renewed. Coach Martin's notification of
non-renewal came by certified mail and was documented, from his point
of view, in a March 13 news story. On March 21, sports editor Dave
DeLand wrote a column in which he criticized SCSU athletic director
Morris Kurtz for the "lousy, insensitive and completely inappropriate
way" he believed coach Martin had been treated by being sent
his dismissal notice in the mail with no personal contact from Kurtz.
DeLand wrote that Kurtz didn't have the decency to walk "the
26 paces" between his office and the coach's to show some compassion.
Kurtz objected to DeLand's characterization of him. Despite several
meetings and calls between the two parties, they were not able to
resolve their differences.
Complaint:
In his letter of complaint Kurtz called the column a "cheap shot"
made without any factual basis. He complained that:
1. The St. Cloud Times column unfairly impugned his
integrity;
2. The columnist should have gotten his side of the
story;
3. The column was based on gossip, not facts, and
that it contained several factual errors:
a) the columnist did not understand how personnel
issues are handled through the collective bargaining agreement,
b) the columnist stated that coach Martin was totally
surprised by the decision, which Kurtz said was not so, and
c) the columnist held Kurtz responsible for the
dismissal, rather than SCSU president Bruce Grube, who made the
final decision.
Kurtz's complaints were summarized in the question
on which the News Council would vote: Was the column unfair to Kurtz
in not giving him a chance to tell his side of the story?
Response:
The St. Cloud Times denied that it was unfair to Kurtz and said that
the opinions expressed in the column fell well within the bounds of
fair comment. DeLand said that if he were to rewrite the column the
only change he would make would be to include the SCSU president in
his condemnation.
Discussion:
Kurtz challenged the columnist: "You were there outside my office
to count the 26 paces, why didn't you knock on my door? This was a
cheap shot and totally unnecessary because I was available for comment."
Media member Kathleen Stauffer asked Kurtz, "Is
your primary disagreement with Mr. DeLand's opinion of your handling
of the process?"
"Certainly everyone has an opinion," said
Kurtz. "But that opinion should be based on facts." Kurtz
said that after he met with Ihne and DeLand and pointed out inaccuracies
in the story he waited patiently for a correction, but one never came.
Ihne said DeLand took the information for his column
from the news story, which had appeared three days earlier. She said,
"We asked [Kurtz], 'If there were inaccuracies in the news story,
why didn't you call?' He said he had decided to just let it go."
Ihne said she was still unaware of inaccuracies in the news story.
Media member Dave Hage asked Kurtz about the inaccuracies.
Kurtz cited several statements he considered erroneous: that the dismissal
letter came from Kurtz (it came from president Grube), that Martin
was blind-sided by the letter, and that Martin is continually referred
to in the editorial as a loyal employee. "I do evaluations every
year. [DeLand has] never seen them."
Ihne said, "We did do a lot more reporting after
we talked to Mr. Kurtz [in a meeting to try to resolve the complaint]
because he told us a lot of things off the record that we tried to
substantiate. We wanted to tell the whole story. The reporter has
given Kurtz many opportunities to go on the record with every story
(since then), but he has declined to do so."
Media member Don Shelby asked Kurtz why he had not
accepted the paper's offer to publish an opinion piece. Kurtz said
it would appear self-serving. He said that after the hearing, win
or lose, he would accept the offer to write an opinion piece.
Media member Elizabeth Costello asked DeLand if he
had spoken with Kurtz before writing the column. DeLand said he bumped
into Kurtz while counting off the 26 paces and said hello, but nothing
more: "It was the last day [Martin's] contract could be continued
and he receives a letter! It was a sense of outrage that I had."
Shelby asked Kurtz what he would have told DeLand
if he had had the chance. Kurtz said, "I would have given him
the collective-bargaining policies and procedures - procedures negotiated
with the union. It shows clearly that this was not a blind charge
coming at [Martin]."
Public member Craig Shulstad asked DeLand if he believed
the coach had been blind-sided by the letter. "I'm sure he was
surprised, but was he stunned? I doubt it," DeLand said.
Kurtz explained that he had met with Coach Martin
after Martin had met with President Grube. Kurtz said Martin told
him the meeting had not gone well. Shelby asked Kurtz if he had commiserated
with the coach. Kurtz said he took him to lunch and they talked about
non-coaching jobs Martin might be interested in at SCSU, but "he
chose not to follow up." Further, Kurtz said he had walked down
the hall to Martin's office the day of the dismissal, but Martin was
not there.
DeLand said the paper did not know Martin had gone
through a formal process. He said when he tried to get information
the University cited the Data Practices Act and refused to make a
public statement. Shelby asked Kurtz if he had refused to comment.
Kurtz said the collective-bargaining agreement prohibited him from
commenting. "[The paper] reports on many employment issues,"
he said, "they should know that [I cannot comment]."
A copy of the collective-bargaining procedure was
provided to Council members. Media member Nancy Conner said she didn't
see that the procedures precluded Kurtz from meeting with Martin.
Minnesota State Colleges and Universities' vice chancellor for human
resources, Bill Tschida, who spoke in support of Kurtz, said, "The
collective bargaining procedure doesn't list all the things you can't
do. It's a written outline of what the process is. It would have been
inappropriate for Dr. Kurtz to have talked with the coach [before
he received the letter]."
Shelby asked Tschida if such an action was merely
inappropriate, or an actual violation. "A violation," said
Tschida.
Public member Julie Tilley ask DeLand if he would
have written the column differently if he had known the process did
not allow any interaction prior to Martin's receiving the dismissal
letter. DeLand said he would not have changed the column.
"You mean," Shelby asked DeLand, "if
you knew of Martin's meeting with the president, that the coach had
an idea that he was on the way out, that the athletic director commiserated
with the coach, you would not change your column?"
"No," said DeLand. "There are two sides
to 'off the record.' The side you're hearing today and the side that
Noel Martin would tell you are different. I would not change what
I wrote.... I've got nothing on the record, but things I've heard
off the record amplify my feelings."
Shelby told DeLand: "If [you] had information
that Kurtz was an evil player instead of an innocent, as he says he
is, that should have been brought up so that readers could judge for
themselves... That's dangerous ground. You're saying, 'I know something
you don't, and if you knew what I know you'd agree.'"
Public member Ann Barkelew asked the newspaper what
its standards were for columnists. Ihne said, "We do want columns
based on fact, but I don't require columnists to go out and re-report
a story." She said a column is the viewpoint of the columnist
based on the facts as they've appeared.
Shelby asked if Ihne exercised editorial control over
columnists: "Do you look at [columns] and ask that [any particular]
statement be supported? How high is the bar?"
Ihne said, "I do not read all the columns before
they go into the paper. Anything controversial in the least should
be flagged for me, but this wasn't flagged, and no red flags went
up for me [when I saw it]."
Deliberation:
Public member Rachel Quenemoen began deliberations with a confession:
"I have begun to accept the notion that in sports columns, it's
'buyer beware.' I accept behaviors there that I don't in news pages....
I came up with a surprise for myself. I [realized I] don't believe
what sports columnists say."
But media member Nancy Conner was not so forgiving:
"If there's anything I'd like to see the Council adhere to, it's
that an editorial [or column] has a responsibility not to perpetuate
inaccuracies."
Media member Monika Bauerlein said she grills reporters
on the facts they present her: "If the reporter says, 'I know
that because I read it in the New York Times or the St. Cloud Times,'
I say to them, 'As much as we love our fellow reporters, we don't
believe a word they say.'" But Bauerlein questioned if it was
really necessary for opinion writers to re-report on their own paper's
stories.
Media member Dave Hage said, "One thing we do
here at the News Council is give guidance to journalists and newspapers,
and this is an opportunity to do that. The News Council gives very,
very wide latitude to expression of opinion.... This was a great column,
it was highly opinionated, it was written with edge. But we do expect
that columnists and editorial writers are still reporters and that
they do their own reporting, that they call the subjects of their
columns. It's often hard, we often think of it as a waste of time,
but it's a basic expectation."
Public member Tom Keller thought the columnist was
demonizing Kurtz with the failings of the system. Shelby agreed: "I
have a problem with ad hominem criticism of a process when it harms
an individual... but the process doesn't seem as cold-hearted when
it's explained."
Public member Julie Tilley said, "In my mind
it's about the procedure, it's not personal, though [Kurtz] is a lightning
rod [for criticism of the procedure. But] I would feel totally different
if he weren't a public figure."
"I struggle with the issue of a 'public figure'
in this case," said Quenemoen. "Sports people at public
institutions are the most public of public figures." She cited
Kurtz: as a person employed by and representing an institution, in
this case SCSU, Kurtz must "like it or not, carry the mantle
for the process or find ways to humanize it or resign."
Media member Tony Carideo agreed: "Having [myself]
been in the unenviable position of having had to fire someone, you
go in knowing full well you're going to be wasted. The employee can
say whatever they want to, and you can't. The employee has all the
fire power; you [as the supervisor] just have to sit back and take
it. It comes with the territory."
For Barkelew, it was a matter of facts: "The
editor did indicate that they expect columnists to be factual. In
the column DeLand says Kurtz observed the letter of the law. That
suggests he is familiar with the process, but that doesn't come through
at all. The column doesn't meet the test that facts have to be there."
"When does an opinion column become a news story?"
asked Craig Shulstad. "This is my opinion, but I think it becomes
a story - more news story than opinion - when it relates to facts,
and [in this case] those facts were never checked."
And of the lack of opportunity for Kurtz to give his
side of the story? Media member Lee Canning contended that Kurtz had
been given an opportunity - several opportunities both before and
after the column appeared - and he had said no: "They asked questions
before [the story] and what was the answer? 'Data privacy, I can't
answer.' I think they [the paper] are home free."
"There is another player not at the table today
and that is the institution (SCSU)," said public member Jon Schroeder.
"The institution could have done a better job of going on the
record... it needed to do a better job here."
The Vote
1. On the question of whether the St. Cloud Times. column was
unfair to Kurtz in not giving him a chance to respond:
Uphold: Conner, Costello, Keller, Shelby, Shulstad
Deny: Bailey, Barkelew, Bauerlein, Canning, Carideo, Hage,
Johnson, Neddermeyer, Quenemoen, Schroeder, Stauffer, Tilley
Recused: Lopez (editorial page editor of the respondent newspaper,
the St. Cloud Times)
Presiding: Stringer
Summary
Many News Council members, including some who voted to deny the complaint,
felt strongly that an opinion writer should exercise the cre of a
reporter in thorough inquiry. Yet, even though the columnist did not
know particulars of the personnel process at the university and did
not offer the athletic director an opportunity to tell his side of
the story, a strong majority of the News Council decided that the
columnist was entitled to wide latitude in expressing his opinion,
justified or not, on the behavior of a public figure so involved in
the administration of a major institution.
June 17, 1998
Read
Determination 124
Back
to Main Determination Index
Back
to News Council Main
Page
Want
to comment? Send a message
to the News Council.
