Determination
76
Minnesota
News Council
In the Matter of the Complaint of
Zachary Zoul against the Mankato Free Press
Attending the hearing were Zachary Zoul, city administrator
of the city of St. Peter, with Randal LeNeave as counsel and Patricia
Plys, editor of the St. Peter Herald; and Michael Larson, editor of
the Free Press.
Background: Zachary Zoul complains about an
editorial which appeared in the Free Press on June 8, 1988, entitled
"Define Zoul's authority," and a subsequent news article appearing
in the Free Press on September 13, 1988, entitled "St. Peter expands
Zoul's hiring-firing power."
Zoul has been city administrator for the city of
St. Peter for approximately three years. His actual title is city
clerk-administrator, but his functions are primarily administrative,
rather than ministerial, while another person acts in a clerical capacity
for the city. Zoul apparently is more of an activist in carrying out
his functions than was his predecessor, which has generated criticism
from some city officials and employees and others in the community.
The basic questions at the heart of the controversy do not pertain
to the legal interpretation of Zoul's authority, but how he is exercising
his powers in practice.
The controversy apparently came to a head after Zoul
transferred two city employees without first getting approval from
the city council. Two council members questioned whether Zoul was
exercising excessive decision-making responsibility. Zoul responded
by seeking a clarification of his job duties and responsibilities.
The Free Press editorial basically sets forth the clash and advocates
that Zoul's duties be confined to that of "an administrator," rather
than a manager. The news article describes the outcome of a meeting
of the city council at which a new ordinance was adopted defining
the authority of the city administrator.
The editorial: Zoul complains about eight
specific aspects of the editorial. Zoul basically charges that the
editorial contains certain "factual errors" and portrays him as attempting
to enhance his authority by usurping power from the city council.
In particular, he charges that the editorial erroneously states that
"he says his duties have changed, but his authority hasn't kept pace;"
that he "apparently believes his duties are more in line with a city
manager than administrator; that state law limits the responsibilities
of an administrator to ministerial duties," pursuant to an opinion
of the city attorney; that "the City's ordinance and policies delineating
authority are clear;" that he has been "the focus of widespread displeasure
among employees;" that he apparently is "seeking a change from administrator
to manager;" that the state is prohibited from employing a city manager;
and that he "should remain an administrator."
While we have some reservations about certain of
these assertions, on the whole we feel the editorial is fair and consistent
with acceptable journalistic standards. Unlike a straight news story,
or even an investigative news piece, an editorial need not be "balanced."
An editorial generally advances a position, rather than lays out both
(or all) sides of an issue. The measuring rod for an editorial is
not whether it is balanced, but rather that its premises are accurate
and its reasoning fair. We think that, on balance, the Free Press
editorial meets these standards.
The basic theme of the editorial is that Zoul's duties
and power are unclear. The editorial advocates that he confine himself
to administrative duties, rather than exercising managerial responsibilities.
The editorial points out Zoul's position that the city lacks a "definite
policy" regarding his duties and authority and that because the nature
of his position has "evolved over time," the city needs a new policy
reflecting the authority he wields in practice. Instead of urging
expanded authority, however, the editorial proceeds to urge that Zoul's
authority be restricted to the traditional administrative duties performed
by his predecessor. While that conclusion is debatable, it can fairly
and rationally be derived from the facts and information underlying
the controversy. Thus, we do not feel the editorial departs from appropriate
journalistic practices.
The news article: The news story, however,
is troubling. The article purports to be a report about the adoption
by the city council of a new ordinance setting forth the city administrator's
authority with respect to personnel matters and defining the duties
of the city clerk. Zoul complains about the inaccuracy of several
portions of the article, and also charges that the general tenor erroneously
suggests that his duties have been enlarged by the ordinance.
We agree with Zoul that the article is inaccurate
and unfair in several particulars. First, the headline is misleading.
It says that the ordinance "expands" Zoul's powers. A comparison of
the predecessor ordinance with the new ordinance, however, suggests
that Zoul's authority has merely been clarified and, if anything,
diminished. It would have been preferable had the headline used the
word "clarifies" or "defines" as describing Zoul's powers. Indeed,
a headline of an earlier article prior to the council's action stated
that Zoul sought his job description to be "clarified," and this is
what the council seemingly did in the new ordinance.
Likewise, the description in the article of Administrator's
duties under the new ordinance suggests that his authority has been
enlarged, whereas the ordinance essentially reiterates the pre-existing
power under the predecessor legislation. In addition, the article
concludes by noting that Zoul is "the ultimate authority in all actions"
and that his "authority is final." This appears to be inaccurate,
although the Free Press published a short correction three days later
stating that any decision or action by Zoul "is subject to council
approval." While we commend the Free Press for this correction, we
feel it is inadequate and should have dealt with the other issues
as well.
In sum, the newspaper article gave the misleading
impression that Zoul was waging a power struggle with the city council.
The insinuations in the article were simply not substantiated, and
the Free Press editor was unable to offer specifics supporting that
implication. Thus, we are compelled to sustain the grievance with
respect to the news article.
In sum, we deny Zoul's grievance with respect to
the editorial, recognizing the greater latitude that editorials have
in distillation of information and advocacy of courses of action.
We sustain the grievance relative to the news article, finding it
to contain several significant inaccuracies and carrying implications
that are not factually supported.
Concurring (editorial): Ashmore, Falkman,
Igoe, Larson, Parrish, Persons, Simonett, Sundin, Tanick
Dissenting (editorial): McDowall, Mundale,
Orwoll, Pennock
Concurring (news article): Ashmore, Falkman,
Igoe, McDowall, Mundale, Parrish, Pennock, Persons, Simonett, Tanick
Dissenting (news article): Larson, Sundin
Abstaining: Orwoll
September 23, 1988
Read
Determination 77
Back
to Main Determination Index
Want
to comment? Send a message
to the News Council.
