Determination
72
Minnesota
News Council
In the Matter of the Complaint of
Edward Tekautz against the Chisholm Free Press-Tribune Press
Veda Ponikvar, publisher of the Chisholm Free Press-Tribune
Press, did not attend but responded to complainant and to the Council
in writing and met with the Council's executive director in Chisholm
on March 2, 1988. Complainant Edward Tekautz attended the hearing.
Background: Tekautz served a one-year term
on the Chisholm City Council in 1984. He ran for a seat on the city
council in 1986 and lost by 54 votes of 2,638 votes cast for him and
his opponent. Complainant first contacted the News Council on November
18, 1986, and decided to go forward with his complaint on March 11,
1987. The grievance was not heard in the fall of 1987, at grievant's
suggestion, because he was again running for city council. He was
subsequently elected.
When Tekautz was narrowly defeated for Chisholm City
Council in 1986, the Chisholm Free Press-Tribune Press printed an
advertisement by his opponent Randy Schroetter and an opinion letter
by Dave Andrews, both of which grievant says incorrectly reported
his 1984 voting record. The ad and letter appeared in the Free Press-Tribune
Press's last issue before the election, not allowing complainant an
opportunity to respond before the election. (The newspaper is published
twice a week, on Tuesday and Thursday.)
Grievant complains that both the advertisement and
the letter misrepresented his voting record and that the late placement
did not allow him time to respond in the newspaper before the election.
The open letter dealt with fewer alleged Tekautz positions than the
ad, which specified nine votes by complainant. For this discussion,
the Council concentrated on the 3-1/2" by 8" ad which stated:
Let's Check the Record
of Councilman
Randy Schroetter's against His Opponent
- He Voted Against the AEOA Bus Service
- He Voted Against the Chisholm Ambulance Longyear,
Inc. contract
- He Voted Against Sunday liquor sales
- He Voted Against the Right to Know Seminar
- He Voted Against calling for bids and purchasing
new squad cars for the Public Safety Dept.
- He Voted Against IRRRB projects in 1984
- He Voted Against the Mobile Home Ordinance
- He Voted Against purchase of a new pickup for
the city garage
- He Voted Against the Assessment Policy
Let's not move backwards - let's move ahead
RANDY SCHROETTER
your Councilman
Polls open Tuesday, November 4
7 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Thank you for your support
Paid for by candidate in his own behalf.
Discussion: The newspaper did not endorse
any candidate, and complainant's position on the issues in the ad
had not been the subject of general news coverage prior to the ad.
Complainant told the Council that when he placed
his own ad in the Chisholm Free Press-Tribune Press, the publisher
challenged his statement that his opponent had "consistently voted
for increases in taxes and levies" and that in response he removed
the word "consistently." He complains that he was not told of his
opponent's ad and that his opponent "was apparently not asked to prove
his statements the way I was."
On assignment by the chairman, the Council's executive
director Tom Patterson met with Tekautz and publisher Ponikvar in
Chisholm on March 2. He also interviewed Tekautz's 1986 opponent Randy
Schroetter about the ad and examined the voting records for Chisholm
City Council meetings in the official Minutes.
The position of the publisher has been that the ad
was accurate or essentially accurate. The Council found that for the
nine items in the ad, complainant had either voted "no," as the ad
indicated, or his voting record on the issue was subject to interpretation.
On AEOA bus service, Tekautz was present for both city council votes
on the issue in 1984. In the first instance, he made a motion to approve
a $3,000 city subsidy for the service when $6,300 had been requested.
Both his opponent and the publisher considered this a "no" vote because
they did not expect the service to continue without the full subsidy.
At the later vote, the earlier motion to approve $3,000 was amended
to raise the amount to $6,300 and Tekautz voted in favor of the motion.
While it does not appear that Tekautz voted against the AEOA bus levy,
the News Council felt that interpretation of the votes could support
an argument that "technically" the ad was correct or "technically"
the ad was incorrect.
Similarly, on the Right to Know seminar, Tekautz
voted "yes" on a seminar held in Eveleth and "no" on one held in St.
Paul. While Tekautz had voted in favor of most IRRRB (Iron Range Resources
and Rehabilitation Board) projects, he did vote "no" on one. It was
incorrect that he voted against letting bids on new squad cars. He
voted for the squad cars. But he did vote "no" on a motion to sell
an old squad car. (He wanted to keep it for the city nurse.) Since
selling the old squads was part of buying the new, even this vote
is subject to interpretation.
The Council then considered Tekautz's position that
because the ad ran in the last edition of the newspaper before the
election, he was not permitted an opportunity to defend his voting
record. The News Council has previously been asked to consider complaints
of last-minute attacks in political elections, and the Council has
recognized this as a troublesome area for both publishers and candidates.
Such ads affect reputations and, especially if timed for publication
immediately before an election, when there is little time for effective
rebuttal, can affect election results. Publishers would be wise to
have policies for dealing with late introduction of new issues into
a campaign. The need to offer response time was particularly important
in this case, where it could be argued that some "no" votes referenced
in the ad were really "yes" votes. Some newspapers choose to solve
this problem by not allowing political letters to the editor or political
ads which introduce new issues at a time when an opponent cannot respond.
Some newspapers make it their policy to tell an advertiser that a
last-minute political ad will be accepted only with the understanding
that the newspaper will show it to the opponent and offer the opponent
an opportunity to respond in the same issue of the newspaper.
Decision: The Council finds the ad and open
letter ambiguous with respect to accuracy, and the complaint of inaccuracy
is denied. The complaint is sustained with respect to the unfairness
of publishing these new attacks without adequate time for complainant
to respond in the newspaper.
Concurring: Ashmore, Beaulieu, Bednar, Casey,
Chucker, Falkman, King, Parrish, Persons, Ryan, Simonett, Stone, Warder
Dissenting: Larson - Although a newspaper
editor should have some type of policy regarding election material
presented, whether close to election time or not, it seems that a
voting record is not necessarily a new issue. Voting records are just
that: records. To remind people of that record would not seem to be
a new issue unless the candidate is insisting he/she has been voting
another way than the record shows.
March 18, 1988
Read
Determination 73
Back
to Main Determination Index
Want
to comment? Send a message
to the News Council.
