Determination 113: Robert Herickhoff School Board Member v. Mankato Free Press
Robert 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 thatThe 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.
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.
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 Pressdenied 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.
Tags: Mankato Free Press