In a hearing on a complaint filed by DFL Chair Brian Melendez against MinnPost, the Council also ruled 12-to-1 that before MinnPost published its original story, reporter Doug Grow gave the DFL an adequate opportunity to respond to the accusations made, but again split 8-to-5 in favor of MinnPost on the question of whether the publication responded appropriately to the issues raised in the DFL Party’s complaint.

Melendez complained that an August 5 MinnPost story, which reported according to “unnamed sources within the party, that the DFL is on the verge of being fined $50,000 by the Federal Elections Commission” was false.

“MinnPost got the story wrong, and it hurt the DFL,” said Melendez during the hearing.  “The story was run in August, and it’s now December, and we still haven’t heard from the FEC on this issue, because there is no fine.”

Although DFL officials, including Melendez, vehemently denied the accusations made in the story and requested a retraction on the story, MinnPost stood by its reporting and the standards it used to verify the information provided by the two sources who gave Grow the details of the FEC investigation and the potential fine.

“Doug Grow followed MinnPost’s policies regarding the use of anonymous sources,” said MinnPost Managing Editor Roger Buoen.  “Doug had dealt with these sources before and they were reliable.  There was no reason not to believe the information he was given.”

Buoen, who helped write MinnPost’s anonymous sources policy said that to use an anonymous source, a reporter must get approval from an editor; tell the editor the source’s name, title and how they got the information; give the accused or affected parties a chance to respond to any allegations made; find a second, independent source to corroborate the information and; should include information about the source and why they know the information being shared with the reader.

When asked if MinnPost’s reliance on anonymous sources for the story was fair, seven council members voted “yes,” and six members voted “no.”  Public member Jane Berg noted that as a reader, she would have liked to see less ambiguous language used to describe the sources of the allegation.  “’Sources within the party’ does not tell us much,” Berg said.

Council members also closely questioned reporter Grow on whether his sources had any documentation confirming the size of the fine.  “How did the source know the information?” asked media member Thom Fladung, editor of the Pioneer Press.  “That’s the most important thing to know.”  Grow answered that the providers of the information were “vague” in their response of how they obtained the information, but that they had proven to be “highly reliable” sources in the past and that after careful consideration of the veracity of the sources, the publication decided to move forward with its story.

When asked why he didn’t accept MinnPost’s offer to author a full rebuttal of the story or to be interviewed by a MinnPost reporter, Menendez said he declined because “that would have only given more legs to the story.”  “I didn’t want the story told at all because it’s not true,” Melendez said.

After a Sept. 18, 2007 meeting, the Woodbury Bulletin published an editorial, “Councilman’s Antics Were Unnecessary,” and a similar letter to the editor that were critical of Afton City Councilman Joe Richter. The pieces allege that Richter treated another city councilmember disrespectfully during a dispute that occurred at the meeting.

“The Woodbury Bulletin portrayed me in a false light,” said Richter. “They took some facts and exaggerated them in duration and intensity in an effort to develop a false representation of me and what transpired.” The Woodbury Bulletin did not attend the hearing, but Editor Bob Eighmy told the Council that the paper stands behind its Sept. 26 editorial.

The Bulletin wrote that Richter “went into something of a tirade” and “took 20 minutes to argue his point,” after another councilmember made a request to have resident comments from a supplemental information packet read aloud. The editorial also stated that Richter was “waving his nameplate” in front of councilmember Nick Mucciacciaro’s face.

News Council members viewed video footage from the Sept. 18 Afton City Council meeting, and unanimously agreed that the editorial did not accurately portray Richter’s conduct. They expected to see theatrics, but only identified a few moments of lively give and take between Richter and Councilman Mucciacciaro.

In its deliberation of the second complaint, the News Council members discussed the standards of accuracy and fairness used in newspaper opinion pages. Public member Colin Sokolowski asked if editorials should be held to a higher standard of accuracy than letters to the editor. “There is a higher burden on editorials to ‘get it right,’” said media member Steve Schild, a journalism professor at St. Mary’s University.

“What I felt when I read the Woodbury Bulletin editorial was that I wanted everyone to know, ‘That is not me; that is not what happened!’” said Richter. “The News Council provided me with a forum where my real voice could be heard.”

Newman, who is known for her colorfully decorated home in South Minneapolis, felt the terms used to describe her in the review were unfair. Newman said that she was fearful that the article’s citation of her full name and address would provoke vandalism and verbal abuse.

Media Response: Though the Minnesota Daily’s staff had turned over almost immediately after the article was published- Daily staff changes with each academic term- the current editors and reader representative responded swiftly to defend the article.

They said the article did not reference Newman pejoratively, but in fact praised her as a nonconformist. The Daily also pointed out that because she has been the subject of many stories in the local press, Newman is a public figure subject to public critique.

The Hearing: Council members considered the following questions:

• Was it unfair of the Daily to use Newman to introduce a review of a play about a woman with “questionable mental faculties?”
• Was the article unfair when it described Newman as a “maniacal, googily-eyed token crazy lady?”
• Was the use of Newman’s first and last name and the location of her residence unfair in the context of this article?

Q & A: At the hearing, Mari Newman was assisted by Craig Dunn, executive director of VSA Arts. He stated that the reference was an “invasion of privacy” because the article was a theater review that had “nothing to do with her.” “Is this how the media handles people with disabilities?” he asked, “Is it open season?”

Newman, whose home functions as a public art installation, has been the subject of media attention in the past. She felt this that the Daily’s article was different, however, in that it was personal – “It’s about me, not my art or my house or my ideas,” she said.

Dunn observed that “eccentric” would have been a better description to use in the article’s opening paragraph. “Disabled people,” he said, “often do not get the luxury of being called that. Rich people are ‘eccentric,’ but poor people are ‘crazy.’ The language was offensive and it furthered a stereotype.”

Student editors Emily Banks and Michael Marino of the Minnesota Daily were present to defend “crazy” as a subjective term. “The reporter was trying to communicate that Mari is different, but commendably so,” said Banks. “It was meant to celebrate nonconformity.” She called attention to the article’s punch-line:

“But [the character]- much like the fabled madwomen of our bosom cities- sullies up the world’s starchy, stagnant imagination with a little crackpot excitement and creative escapism. And nowadays, that can’t come in hearty enough doses.”

Banks commented that referencing Newman and other well-known locals was the writer’s attempt to connect the play to students’ daily lives. “Arts writing is innately subjective,” she said, “you need opinions and creative, colorful writing.”

Banks mused that if she had been editor when article was published, she might have done things differently, but said that in the context of a full reading, the article did not impugn anyone’s character.

Deliberation:

“When you combine the word crazy with words like maniacal and googily-eyed, does it still mean ‘eccentric?’ What about the reference to ‘questionable mental faculties?’” said Tom Forsythe of General Mills. “I don’t understand why it is necessary to pick on someone for a theater review- Mari is totally extraneous.”

Steve Schild, a journalism professor at St. Mary’s University, demurred, “I always tell my students to never forget that they’re writing about real people… but Mari is a public figure who has availed herself and her eccentricity to the world.”

“When you draw attention to yourself,” agreed Reed Anfinson of the Swift County News-Monitor, “you can’t necessarily control it.”

“But is undue harm okay when you’re trying to be creative? The writer was going for shock value and nobody stopped her,” said Karen Boros, a journalism instructor at the University of St. Thomas.

Jim Pumarlo, a newspaper consultant, conceded that if he had edited the article, he would have toned it down. “I’m not as critical of the Daily as I first was, though,” he said, “It appears that Mari’s status as a vulnerable adult is not common knowledge.”

“You have to look at the whole thing,” added Al Zdon of the MN American Legion. “It’s actually laudatory to Mari at the end. It was perhaps not well written and fell short of what the writer was trying to do, but that’s fairly common in journalism.”

Thom Fladung, editor of the Pioneer Press, quipped, “I would admit that journalism often falls short of the ideal, but then again, so does my car, my plumbing, my education, my legal advice…”

“I think it’s a question of motivation gone astray; it led to harm even if it was inadvertent,” concluded Wendy Wyatt, a journalism instructor at the University of St. Thomas. “Technology really makes the first paragraph relevant- few people will read the whole story.”

Vote:

The first two complaints were upheld and the third complaint dismissed.

• Was it unfair of the Daily to use Newman to introduce a review of a play about a woman with “questionable mental faculties?”

The Council ruled “YES” by a vote of 10 – 4.

• Was the article unfair when it described Newman as a “maniacal, googily-eyed token crazy lady?”

The Council ruled “YES” by a vote of 11 – 3.

• Was the use of Newman’s first and last name and the location of her residence unfair in the context of this article?

The Council ruled “NO” by a vote of 10 – 3 with one abstention.

Attendance:

Council Chair

• James H. Gilbert, Mediator/Arbitrator, Gilbert Mediation Center

Media Council Members

• Reed Anfinson, Editor/Publisher, Swift County News-Monitor
• Karen Boros, Journalism Professor, University of St. Thomas
• Thom Fladung, Editor/Vice President, Pioneer Press
• Don Heinzman, Editorial Writer, ECM Publishers
• Kerri Miller, Midmorning Host, Minnesota Public Radio
• Jim Pumarlo, Director of Communications, MN Chamber of Commerce; Newspaper Consultant
• Dr. Steve Schild, Associate Professor of Media Communications, St. Mary’s University
• Wendy Wyatt, Journalism Professor, University of St. Thomas

Public Council Members

• Jane Berg, Fleishman-Hillard, Inc.
• Tom Forsythe, Director of Corporate Communications, General Mills
• Roberta Johnson, retired high school journalism teacher
• Tom Peterson, attorney, Peterson & Hektner, Ltd.
• Karen Runyon, forensic document examiner
• Al Zdon, Communications Director, MN American Legion

Complainants

• Mari Newman, Minneapolis artist
• Craig Dunn, Executive Director of VSA Arts

The Minnesota Daily

• Emily Banks, Co-Publisher & Editor in Chief
• Michael Marino, Co-Publisher & Chairman of the Board

Minnesota News Council Staff

• Sarah Bauer, Interim Director
• Erika Roland, Development Director
• Hanna Dorn, Operations Assistant

Media Attention:

Press coverage of Mari Newman’s complaint against the Minnesota Daily was seen in:

• Access Press
• City Pages
• Minnesota Monitor
• Minnesota Newspaper Association Bulletin

The Minnesota News Council denied a complaint today that the Bemidji Pioneer newspaper was unfair in running a news story about a same-day, full-page ad that said DFL politicians were buying votes from Red Lake Reservation residents by funneling state financial support to them. The vote was 10-3.

The News Council upheld a complaint that the page-one news story was unfair in not including views of those whom opponents of DFLers who were interviewed about the ad and who said, among other things, that critics of the relationship between the state and the reservation were racist. The vote was 9-4.

The complaints came from a group calling itself Citizens for Truth in Government. The group said it was non-partisan. The ad and news story ran on October 25, 2006, two weeks before the last election. The group said the newspaper was unfair charging it for ad space and then giving free expression in the news story to those the ad criticized.

The News Council strongly backed the newspaper’s right to exercise its judgment in doing a same-day story on an ongoing controversy. The Council also criticized the newspaper’s failure to do a balanced story. Several members said that the news story included a gratuitous editorial opinion that the ad’s indictment of DFL candidates “undermines its statement” that the group is non-partisan.

The Pioneer’s editor, Molly Miron, who wrote the news story, acknowledged that she “should have” allowed the placers of the ad to respond to accusations that they were racist. She said she called the head of the group but was not able to reach him.

Public member Tom Forsythe, a communications executive at General Mills, said the newspaper could have delayed publishing both the ad and the news story until the reporter could gather material that would provide balance.

Media member Dave Beal, retired business columnist of the Pioneer Press, said the news story served readers well by appearing on the same day as the ad: “It functions as an ad for the ad.” Several members said the news story stated the ad’s main points more clearly and briefly than the ad did. But public member Tom Peterson, a Minneapolis attorney, said that people who read the news story before reading the ad could come to the ad thinking it was filled with errors.

The News Council’s determinations carry no sanctions; they are advisory, and the hearing process is voluntary. The Council was founded in 1970 and is an independent nonprofit organization with 24 voting members, half of them journalists, half laypersons. All members represent only themselves.

Complaint: 

Complaint 1: The news article as a whole was unfair to Judy Peterzen
Peterzen’s complaint alleged: that the Sun-Post was unfair in its use of the word “breach” in reporting differences among school board members over the evaluation of the superintendent, implying that she violated her duty; that the Sun-Post’s inclusion of information on the Robbinsdale board’s evaluation of its superintendent was unfair because it did not explain the legal process the Robbinsdale board followed, and; that the article showed bias against Peterzen as school board chair by reporting five times that she had not provided a summary of the board’s evaluation of the superintendent.

Complaint 2: The editing of Peterzen’s letter to the editor as a whole was unfair.
Peterzen’s complaint alleged: that the Sun-Post was unfair in changing the language of her letter from “A report in the Sun-Post on July 24 was embellished to give an impression that I was in violation of my duty.” to “A report in the Sun-Post on July 24 may have given some the impression that I was in violation of my duty”; that the Sun-Post unfairly deleted from Peterzen’s letter her explanation of the Robbinsdale action; that the paper unfairly changed the language of her letter from “But if you look closely at that law, it states that a ‘summary of results‘ must be given . . .” to “But if you look closely at that law, I believe it states that . . . ” and; that the paper showed bias by deleting from Peterzen’s letter the following line: “A possible explanation for what I believe is highly charged and biased reporting is that the writer disagrees with the decisions being made and has lost a sense of objectivity.”

Response: The Sun-Post declined to take part in the hearing but sent a written response to the complaint. The paper’s response said that the law could be interpreted differently, so it felt the need to qualify her words with the insertion of “I believe.” The paper acknowledged that it would have done well to use brackets around the phrase, or some other device, to let the reader know the words were not Peterzen’s.

Discussion: Council members, representing both the news media and the public, felt strongly that when a person is the subject of aggressive reporting and editorializing, as Peterzen was, a news outlet should give that person a lot of freedom to defend herself and to criticize the news outlet.

“I think that when a paper is critical of a public official in print,” said Duluth News Tribune editorial editor, Pia Lopez said, “it should give the widest possible latitude for response after that.”
Council member Mike Parta or New York Mills, a former president of the Minnesota Newspaper Association, said, “It’s important for our readers to know we allow that type of open discussion” of a paper’s work.

Peterzen objected to the Sun-Post’s including in its story information about how differently the Robbinsdale district handles evaluation of its superintendent, since there was no discussion of that topic at the Osseo board meeting that was the subject of the story. St. Paul Pioneer Press executive Editor Vicki Gowler responded by saying, “Your comment [about a reporter doing independent gathering of data] is jarring to me. The role of a journalist is not stenographic. Our job is to make comparisons, give context and go deeper so the public can better understand an issue.”

Peterzen contrasted the Sun-Post story with a heavily edited and rewritten version that appeared a week later in a sister publication, the Osseo-Maple Grove Press. She said that version of the story was fair, as was the version of her letter to the editor that ran in the Press.
Council members agreed that a newspaper could do well to call a letter writer to clear changes before publication and, if a letter is considered too long, offer a writer the chance to shorten it while preserving its strongest points.

Brandt Williams, a reporter for Minnesota Public Radio, responded to Peterzen’s claims of bias. He said that the idea shouldn’t just be thrown out. While he couldn’t decide on the evidence of bias specifically, he said, “it would be a concern of mine.”

Vote:
Complaint 1: not upheld (13-4)
Complaint 2: upheld (17-0)

Complaint:

1. That the November 15th story was unfair because it did not include his point of view – that the temporary clerk never conveyed the checks to him, and that he did not want the checks cashed until the assessments were certified, months later. He said the reporter had had no trouble reaching him at work when he ran for City Council, but on this missing check story tried him at home during the day, instead of calling his office.

2. That the headline (without the subhead) on the November 17 story (“Residents to pay assessments again: City lost checks, will pay stop payment fees”) could have easily misled readers into believing that Grant taxpayers were being billed twice for the road-paving assessment.

3. That the March, 2002, follow-up story, on partial rebates of assessments, did not forthrightly acknowledge the alleged shortcomings in the first two stories.

Response: The Pioneer Press said that the reporter thought under the circumstances leaving a message at his home was the best way to contact Keating. The inaccuracies cited in the complaint, it said, were accurate reports of what other Grant officials said. 

The paper claimed that with the subhead in the November 17th story was accurate and that the follow-up story was the best way to bring readers clear information about the situation, since so much time had passed. The paper said once it was aware of Keating’s concerns, it made a good faith effort to address his concerns.

Discussion: Many News Council members said Keating should have sought an immediate correction from the paper. He said he did not because he felt the paper was avoiding him, as he said it had done before, and he preferred to file a complaint with the News Council.

The Pioneer Press reporter, Amy Becker, said she had no reason to avoid him. She said she wanted his views in the story, but she acknowledged that she could and should have called him at the financial services office in Edina where he works. Instead, she left a voice message at his home the afternoon before the story appeared. He said he did not get it until after the 6 p.m. deadline her message mentioned. Neither Keating nor Becker placed a call to the other that night. The paper said it actually had until midnight to include his version.

Keating said the paper had had no trouble finding him in Edina when it wanted to question him during his unsuccessful run for city council last year. 
One media member said that if Keating had demanded a correction immediately, the story that appeared last month would have appeared in November, and the dispute would have been resolved.

Another media member, Reed Anfinson, publisher of the Swift County Monitor-News in Benson, Minn., suggested that this dispute reveals a basic flaw in the attempt of major metropolitan daily newspapers to cover complicated governmental issues in short stories.

Becker, the Pioneer Press reporter, said she covers 14 communities and the police and court beats for all of Washington County. She did not attend the Grant City Council meeting at which the missing-checks matter arose. She developed a story later, by phone.

Council member Jay Furst, managing editor of the Rochester Post-Bulletin, questioned the need to publish the story quickly, instead of waiting to include Keating’s comments.

Public member Neil Neddermeyer, a retired Hennepin County sheriff’s detective, said he agreed the reporter “should have gone the extra mile (to get Keating’s comments), but Keating also should have gone the extra mile (and called her even though the 6 p.m. deadline she told him about had passed). If I came home at 6 o’clock and got a message like that I’d be on the phone right away.”

Pia Lopez, editorial page editor of the Duluth News-Tribune, a media member, asked Keating: “How do you make a paper improve itself? Contact the paper (about errors) and make the story clear. It’s not clear to me that Mr. Keating was interested in that.”

Public member Karen Runyon, a forensics expert, said she thought a citizen should not be held to a higher standard than a newspaper is held to. She said the original story made the behavior of the city treasurer sound suspicious, and he deserved a chance to tell his side of the story.

The Vote:
Complaint 1: upheld (11-5)
Complaint 2: not upheld (10-6)
Complaint 3: not upheld (15-1)

Background: On October 31, 1996, the Fairlawn Mansion and Museum hosted a Murder Mystery Dinner. Guests were asked to dress and act as if it were 1918 and they were attending a Mother Goose costume party at the home of a wealthy widow, played by Martin. One woman attended the party in blackface and, as part of the evening’s program, recited the nursery rhyme “Ten Little Nigger Boys.”

On Thursday, November 7, News-Tribune reporter Chuck Frederick called Martin to ask about the Murder Mystery Dinner. Martin answered several of his questions, then asked why he was interested one week after the event had taken place. Frederick said the paper had received a complaint from one of the guests about the guest in blackface and he was working on a potential story.

On Friday, November 8, the News-Tribune published a story describing the Murder Mystery Dinner and reporting that a guest had attended in blackface and had won first prize for her costume. The story also reported that some guests and community members were offended by what they perceived as a racist incident. After reading the story, Martin faxed the paper a letter to the editor apologizing to anyone in the community who was offended by the guest’s blackface costume.

On Saturday, November 9, the News-Tribune published a follow-up news story about the event that contained quotes from Martin’s as-yet-unpublished letter to the editor. The same day, the paper ran an editorial denouncing the event at Fairlawn.

On Sunday, November 10, the News-Tribune published Martin’s letter to the editor. The paper published numerous other letters on the subject during the two months that followed the event, and stories about the controversy were published in papers around the country.

The Museum’s board of directors issued a press release on November 19 apologizing for the situation, but supporting Martin. On November 22, the News-Tribune published a story reporting that the NAACP was considering asking for Martin’s resignation. Two days later, the paper published an editorial criticizing the incident at Fairlawn, but saying Martin should not lose her job.

Complaint: Martin complained that the first news article was inaccurate and inflammatory, and that the ensuing coverage was unfair to her personally. She cited two errors as most damaging: the story’s lead paragraph reported that the guest in blackface won first prize when, in fact there was no first prize, every participant won a prize; and the version of “Ten Little Nigger Boys” quoted in the story was a different, more violent version than the one read at the event. She said the Duluth News-Tribune sensationalized and exploited the event at Fairlawn, causing great suffering to the community, to her organization, and to her professional reputation.

Martin also said the story lacked balance because it did not make clear that the guest’s actions were out of her control and that she did not know that a guest in blackface would be attending. She also complained that the story did not give her credit for upholding the guest’s First Amendment rights. Martin said that it was unfair that she, rather than the guest in blackface, became the focus of the coverage and that she was the subject of personal attacks in editorial cartoons. She rejected the paper’s contention that she became the focus because she declined to release the guest list; she said it was not her responsibility to do the paper’s reporting.

Martin also complained that her letter to the editor was used without her permission as part of the follow-up news story of November 9 and not published in full until November 10. She said she had no idea something like that could happen and was furious when it did. Martin said she submitted the letter to be published as her full statement to the community about the blackface costume, not to be presented in parts to suit the newspaper’s needs.

Response: The Duluth News-Tribune responded that it did not intend to hurt Martin personally or professionally, and denied that it sensationalized the story. Rather, the paper said, it was trying to find out the truth about a situation it deemed newsworthy, especially in the context of what it called its concerted effort to cover “subtle racism” in the Twin Ports area.

Managing Editor Gemoules said the paper placed the story on the front page because there had been a great deal of public discussion that summer about racism in the area, which has a population that is 97% white. The News-Tribune said it tried to keep the focus off Martin, but that was difficult because she kept the guests’ identities from the paper and she took responsibility for the incident by offering a public apology.

The News-Tribune said it took extra time to report this story because it was more important to be fair and accurate than to beat the competition. The paper said it received the call of complaint about the guest in blackface one week before it published the first story about the incident. The News-Tribune said the reporter used that time to develop the story and to put the incident in the context of local concerns about subtle racism and the national debate about dealing wiyth historical racism. The paper said it took the highly unusual step of reading the story to Martin prior to publication to ensure accuracy.

Regarding Martin’s complaint about excerpting her letter to the editor in the follow-up news story, the News-Tribune said the reporter called Martin for her comments for the follow-up news story. Martin declined to comment for publication, but said she was composing a letter to the editor that she would fax to the paper later that day. The editors’ considered the information contained within the letter so significant to the story that it would have been unfair to Martin not to include it in the story. The News-Tribune did not then run letters to the editor on Saturdays (the day the news story ran) and felt that it would be wrong to do so with her letter because readers would not know to look for it. Further, instead of allowing for the usual lag time between submission and publication of a letter, the paper said it spent extra time and money recomposing the Sunday editorial pages to publish Martin’s letter. Even more beneficial for Martin, it said, the paper’s Sunday circulation is significantly larger than on other days of the week.

Discussion: Council member Carol Pine asked Martin if she had reviewed the first news story before publication as the paper had claimed she had. Martin said she had not seen the story in full, but that when Frederick called back after interviewing her on November 7 to confirm that a story would appear on the next day’s front page, he read to her only the parts that quoted her. Council member Mollie Hoben asked theNews-Tribune when it had let Martin review the story in full. Frederick said that he let Martin read the story when he interviewed her in her office in the afternoon of November 7, he remembered, because it was the only time they had a face-to-face meeting. Martin disputed Frederick’s answer, saying that when he came to her office, he said he still did not know if the paper would publish a story.

Council member Don Smith asked Martin if she agreed that the event was newsworthy, and if so, how she would have liked to see it reported. Martin said she did not think the incident itself was newsworthy, but that it presented opportunities for good journalism — opportunities the newspaper missed. For example, she said, the paper could have explored the First Amendment rights of the guest in blackface who paid to attend the event in a public building, or what the private, non-profit organization hosting the event could have done had it considered the guest’s costume inappropriate, or how to present parts of history that offend people.

Council member Terry Thompson asked Martin to explain her reaction to the guest in blackface. Martin said that blackface offends her deeply, as she is a strong proponent of civil rights. She said that while she was horrified by the costume, she also had a job to do. Martin said that in keeping with her character, she asked the woman which nursery rhyme she was representing and the guest responded by showing her the copy of the poem, which was not the same as the one quoted in the paper.

Council member Dave Hage asked the News-Tribune if the version of the nursery rhyme quoted in the story was shown to Martin prior to publication. Frederick said several lines of the nursery rhyme were contained in the story that he showed to Martin, but conceded that it was later edited. He said he obtained that version of the nursery rhyme from the library and read it to the guest who complained and to the two anonymous sources, all of whom agreed that that was the poem the guest in blackface recited at the event.

Martin responded that Frederick did not read to her excerpts of the poem contained in the story, that he said only the title of the poem and asked her if that was the poem the guest in blackface had read. She responded yes because she did not know there were different versions of the poem until she read the paper the next day.

Council member Nedra Wicks asked the paper if it had sought out a spokesperson other than Martin; for example, the president of the Museum’s board of directors. Frederick said that he contacted as many board members as he could, but none was at the party or knew about the incident, and they referred him back to Martin.

Council member Tom Keller asked the paper why, if it took an entire week to ensure the accuracy of its report, it led the story with the inaccurate fact that the blackface costume won first prize. Frederick said the paper maintains that fact is accurate because the guest who complained told him that the guest in blackface had won a prize for best costume; a fact that he said two anonymous sources and Martin all corroborated.

Council member Laurisa Sellers asked the paper to explain its policy on using unnamed sources. Managing Editor Gemoules said that generally the paper frowns on using unnamed sources but may use them if they have first-hand knowledge of the information they’re providing and if he knows the sources’ names. Gemoules also pointed out that this story did not quote unnamed sources, but used them only to corroborate information given by on-the-record sources.

Council member Maureen Reeder asked the News-Tribune if it traditionally excerpts parts of letters to the editor in news stories. Editorial page editor Jim Heffernan said that that issue doesn’t come up very often, but that it has happened before. On the infrequent occasions when he receives a letter to the editor pertaining to a hot news item, he said, he will take it to the news editors for their consideration and possible use. Reeder then asked the news editors if they traditionally ask for a writer’s permission to use a letter to the editor in a news story. City Editor Aggergaard said that during his years with the News-Tribune this was the first time he was faced with such a situation. Heffernan added that the paper considers anything written to it usable on receipt, and that readers understand that letters may be edited for style and syntax.

Martin responded that she never would have expected her letter to the editor to be used in the news pages. Having said that, Martin said that Heffernan had told her it usually takes several days before a letter to the editor is printed, and she appreciated that he made the effort to publish it in Sunday’s paper.

Council member Syl Jones asked the paper if, in the future, it would excerpt letters to the editor in news stories without a writer’s permission. Gemoules answered yes, and clarified that in this case, when the reporter called Martin for her comments for the follow-up news story, he reasonably interpreted Martin’s statement that she was submitting a letter to the editor to mean that her comments could be taken from her letter.

Council member Ann Barkelew asked the paper if it considered other ways of running Martin’s letter to the editor on the news page, such as running it in full in a separate box, as the Star Tribune had done recently with a letter from Louise Erdrich about a story on her late husband Michael Dorris. Gemoules answered that virtually all of Martin’s letter was quoted in the story, though not together in one place. He said at the time they didn’t feel obligated to run the whole letter but, in retrospect, they could have.

Council member Jim Pumarlo told Martin he appreciated that she did not expect to see parts of her letter to the editor in the news story, but asked her what harm it had done. Martin responded that it was unfair for the paper to excerpt her letter because in so doing, it ceased to be a complete statement by her, but rather was used by the paper to fit its needs.

Deliberation: Wicks said that she would have liked the paper to expand accountability for what happened at the Fairlawn event. Reeder agreed, saying the paper placed the blame for what happened only on Martin when it could have asked why other guests or employees didn’t speak up at the event. Barkelew countered that when Martin refused to release the guest list or the name of the guest in blackface, she allowed for fewer sources that could have taken the focus off of her.

Smith said he felt the incident was a news story that needed to be printed. “I don’t believe the article itself was inflammatory, I think it’s an issue that inflames the public,” he said. “You can’t write about it without reaction, and I’m impressed with the balance in the coverage.” Council member John Kostouros agreed: “This was one of the better jobs I’ve seen in a long time,” he said. “These things stir up a hornets nest.”

Jones said that as a person of color (he is African-American), he found it frightening that a situation like this had happened. “It’s also frightening that the paper can’t even identify who did it, and that parts of the community, including you, Ms. Martin, cover up who did it.” Jones acknowledged that the paper was trying to do a good job of covering the issue, but was handicapped by not having more people of color on staff to inform its discussion.

Sellers said that while she didn’t think the news coverage was unfair, she also didn’t think it was a great story. She said the paper missed a lot of opportunities, as Martin had pointed out.

Kostouros said that although he could understand why Martin wanted her letter published it its entirety, he could not see the problem with how it was used, considering it quoted her letter accurately. Smith agreed, saying its use actually made a stronger argument for fairness in that her statement was published twice. Hage said he has worked in both news and editorial departments and is “troubled by leakage through the firewall.” In this case, however, he was satisfied that the paper was acting in good faith.

Pumarlo said he could understand how the reporter could have interpreted Martin’s letter to the editor as comments for publication. However, had the situation occurred at his paper, the Red Wing Republican Eagle, he said he would have published the full letter alongside the news story on Saturday and would have disclosed that it would appear in the letters-to-the-editor section on Sunday.

Other members were troubled by the use of Martin’s letter to the editor in the follow-up news story. Reeder said that readers think of the news and editorial departments as separate entities. “I know if I’m not happy with the news, I can go to the editorial page,” she said. “It lessens my trust in the editorial page if I think my opinions may be shuffled over to the news department.” Reeder added that she would not be so bothered if the news editors had obtained Martin’s permission.

Hoben sympathized with Martin and other news sources who submit letters to the editor. She said after cooperating with a paper’s agenda and pace, she could understand why news sources would want their letters to be published in full as their statements, separate from the confines of news stories.

Sellers agreed with Hoben. “I think of the editorial page as the place where I have my say,” she said. “I appreciate the paper’s good faith, but I assume (that page) is for me.”

Determination: The Council voted to deny the complaint that the Duluth News-Tribune’s coverage of the Fairlawn event and its aftermath was unfair to Rachael Martin, director of the Fairlawn Mansion and Museum.

Concurring: Amaris, Barkelew, Hage, Hoben, Jones, Kostouros, LeGrand, Pine, Pumarlo, Reeder, Sellers, Smith, Thompson, Wicks
Dissenting: Keller
Abstaining: Anderson

The Council voted to uphold the complaint that it was unethical for the Duluth News-Tribune to quote in a news story from Martin’s as-yet-unpublished letter to the editor.

Concurring: Amaris, Barkelew, Hoben, Jones, Keller, Reeder, Sellers, Thompson
Dissenting: Hage, Kostouros, LeGrand, Pine, Pumarlo, Smith, Wicks
Abstaining: Anderson

Background: On June 8, 1996, the Citizen published an article entitled “Becker’s Bonded Debt is $50 Million.” It began with an “Editor’s Note” that read, “This is the first in a two part series. It is an article not authorized by the city, with much of the financial information coming from county records.” The article calculated the city’s debt to be almost $30,000 per man, woman and child, and suggested that if Northern States Power, which pays 94% of the city’s taxes, ever pays less or closes its Becker plant, the citizens could be responsible for the debt.

Complaint: Rudberg complained that the article misled readers about the city’s bonded indebtedness and financial condition through a series of inaccuracies and omissions. He complained that the Citizen failed to list a variety of revenue sources used to pay taxes, leaving the impression that property tax payers must carry all the weight, and that it didn’t apportion indebtedness to parties other than the city itself. Rudberg also complained that the Editor’s Note was misleading in that the city never authorizes any article the newspaper publishes, thus implying that the article was exposing something the city was trying to hide.

Rudberg claimed the article was written to do him harm and to embarrass the city because it does not place its official advertising in the paper. Among the factual errors Rudberg cited:

• The paper reported Rudberg started his job as city administrator in about 1990; he was hired in July 1992.
• Many of the projects the article attributed to Rudberg, such as the building of a community center, were begun before he became the city administrator, and some of the projects were a result of voter referendums. Rudberg said the wrongful attribution implied that he intended to capitalize on the city’s huge tax capacity.
• The article reported that he was, “following the city’s master plan that has been put together by Hoingston Kuegler, a Twin Cities public relations firm.” Rudberg said Hoingston Kuegler is not a public relations firm, but a planning firm specializing in land use and environmental planning and design.
• The article asserted that he joined the city with little experience in running city business affairs. Rudberg has a master’s degree in Urban and Regional Studies and had been employed for the previous 8 1/2 years as a city administrator in North Branch, MN.

Response: Editor Jacobson, who wrote the story, responded that his paper had performed a public service by informing readers that the city, with fewer than 950 registered voters, was in danger of being overwhelmed by debt if revenues from Northern States Power declined. He admitted the story contained some inaccuracies, but believed the small mistakes did not discredit the story as a whole. He said readers have a right to know what their elected officials are doing, specifically if the city is bonding beyond normal guidelines.

Jacobson contended that Becker city officials are not accustomed to investigative reporting and resent it, and, as a result, have steered business away from the newspaper, hurting it financially. Nonetheless, he denied the article was vengeful and said it contained no bias, just accurate financial information.

Jacobson said he wrote the Editor’s Note because before he became the publisher three years ago, the newspaper in a nearby town covered news in Becker by publishing the equivalent of city council meeting minutes without digging into issues.

Discussion: Council member Carol Pine asked Jacobson to describe his attempts to contact Rudberg for the story. Jacobson said he made two phone calls on each of two days but was unable to reach Rudberg and had to leave messages with a secretary. He said he quit trying to contact Rudberg when a city council member told him that Rudberg was unhappy with the Citizen’s coverage of the city and was unlikely to return his call. Rudberg disagreed, saying he never received a message from Jacobson about this story, nor did he ever tell anyone that he wouldn’t return Jacobson’s calls.

Council member Don Smith asked why Rudberg let months pass before complaining. Rudberg responded that he feared retribution from the Citizen, which he said had a habit of getting the last word. He said although he contacted the News Council shortly after the article was published, he waited several months to submit his complaint because he was apprehensive about using the process. Council member Jim Pumarlo asked Jacobson if he received complaints about this story from other readers. Jacobson said a neighboring town’s paper received a letter of complaint, but that he had not received any other complaints.

Council member Maureen Reeder asked Jacobson why he published the Editor’s Note. He explained he wanted to make sure his readers understood the information was not spoon-fed to him by the city. Council member Jim Wychor asked Jacobson if he’d ever written an Editor’s Note that said a story had been authorized by the city. Jacobson replied that he had not.

Referring to a letter Jacobson sent to Rudberg on October 15, 1996, Council member Mollie Hoben asked Jacobson what he meant by, “what eventually emerges from slanted or inaccurate stories is fact.” He said he meant that a newspaper can’t always know all of the information when publishing a story but that readers will call the paper to account and the truth will emerge.

Council member Nedra Wicks asked if the city of Becker has a greater debt burden than other cities of similar size. Becker Auditor Hinnenkamp explained statutes define a city’s legal debt margin as 2% of the city’s market value. Because Becker’s value is assessed at $700 million, it carries a $14 million legal debt margin. After subtracting the types of debt that do not apply to the calculation, the auditor said, Becker is actually well below its legal debt margin. He also said that while figuring debt per capita, as the Citizen did, is one measurement tool, it does not account for the fact that an expanding city, like Becker, tends to have high debt because the population growth has not had time to match commercial growth.

Council member Tom Keller asked Jacobson how the negative comments about Rudberg’s personal style contributed to the thrust of the story. Jacobson said that this was not strictly a financial story, and in balancing positive and negative quotes from different people about Rudberg he was trying to relate the “who” of the story.

Determination: Most members agreed that although the article was far from flawless, it did attempt to shed light on an important issue. Pine suggested that if the story misled readers, it did so through omissions and a lack of context necessary for readers to understand a complex story. Wicks agreed, saying she was troubled by the lack of research on a difficult and complex topic, which led her to believe that the story was not driven by a real intent to educate the public. Conner said the article would have been better had it explained the information brought out in the Council’s discussion. Nonetheless, she applauded the paper for taking on a difficult issue. Council member Tom Keller likened the story to the Leaning Tower of Pisa, saying it slants drastically but stops short of crashing.

Some members felt the personal information about Rudberg contained in the story was gratuitous and detracted from the seriousness of the story. Many were bothered by the Editor’s Note. Council member John Kostouros called it a poorly worded way of expressing that Rudberg had not returned Jacobson’s calls.

Reeder said that as a public official, Rudberg had a duty and responsibility to be a source of information for the media. By not doing so, “You get the press you deserve,” she said. At the same time, Reeder faulted the Citizen for writing about Rudberg’s personality without making extraordinary attempts to contact him. While Hoben agreed that Rudberg had a responsibility to be a source, she argued the paper had a greater responsibility to do the work of putting together the story.

Determination #1: The Council denied the complaint that the article misled readers about the city’s finances.

Concurring: Amaris, Conner, Hage, Keller, Kostouros, Pine, Reeder, Sellers, Van Pilsum, Wychor

Dissenting: Hoben, Pumarlo, Smith, Thompson, Wicks

Abstaining: Anderson, LeGrand

Determination #2: The Council upheld the complaint that the Citizen was unfair in its reporting of Rudberg’s role in city projects and finances.

Concurring: Amaris, Hage, Hoben, LeGrand, Keller, Pine, Pumarlo, Reeder, Sellers, Smith, Thompson, Van Pilsum, Wicks, Wychor

Dissenting: Conner, Kostouros

Abstaining: Anderson

Attending the hearing was the complainant, Dr. L. David Mech, a biologist specializing in wolf research with the National Biological Survey. Accompanying Mech were Walter Medwid, director of the International Wolf Center (IWC), and Nancy Gibson, an associate of Mech’s at the IWC. Representing the Star Tribune were Pam Fine, managing editor, Tom Meersman, reporter, and Marilyn Hoegemeyer, story editor.

Background: The Star Tribune said the story originated when the paper received information that Mech and the International Wolf Center had been sued by a former IWC employee. Meersman interviewed more than two dozen people and interviewed Mech twice. On July 23, 1995, the Star Tribune published a copyrighted article on page one, above the fold, with the headline, “Is wolf expert above the rules? Incidents raise ethics questions.”

Mech complained to the Star Tribune, asking for almost two dozen corrections; the paper made two. Mech also asked for rebuttal space on the Commentary page with a front-page referral; the paper gave him 36 inches with no front-page referral. Mech remained unsatisfied with the Star Tribune’s response because he felt the paper had not taken responsibility for what he considered irresponsible journalism. Also, Mech said the original article was circulating on the Internet and had spawned articles in other publications that repeated and distorted its charges. Therefore, Mech asked the Minnesota News Council to review his complaint.

Response of the news organization: The Star Tribune defended the story as fully documented, fair and balanced. It said the article followed standard journalistic practices and raised legitimate questions about the activities of a well-known scientist. Further, the paper said it had provided readers ample opportunity to learn Mech’s views both within the story and in the lengthy Commentary piece written by freelance journalist Dave Anderson at Mech’s request and published on December 10, 1995. More specifically, the paper responded that:

1. The headline reflected legitimate questions posed by numerous people interviewed for the story.

2. The passages to which Mech objected were summaries at the beginning of the story; the assertions they contained were explained in greater detail later. Also, a summary statement by Mech, in his defense, ran near the beginning of the story with further explanation later.

3. The article contained 16 named sources, all of whom were chosen either because of their scientific expertise, their direct experience working with or for Mech, or their knowledge of rules and regulations pertaining to wolves. It also included several people who spoke on condition on anonymity because they said they feared retaliation by Mech. Those sources were used primarily to support what named sources said in the story.

4. The article provided substantiation for its major points both in statements from qualified sources and documents that pertained to the issues raised.

Discussion: Mech claimed that the article’s presentation implied serious wrongdoing when, in his opinion, the worst thing the article had accused him of was accidentally killing a wolf while tranquilizing it in the presence of a British film crew. However, he said, even that charge lacked context – that he had drugged wolves thousands of times without incident. He argued that the article did not merit being marked copyrighted and placed on the front page next to a story about Susan Smith, a woman convicted of murdering her two young sons. Mech expressed concern that many people don’t read beyond the headlines and that it wasn’t until 34 lines into the story that he was quoted. Further, Mech calculated that the statements in his defense totaled less than 10 percent of the article. He questioned the fairness of the paper’s being able to control which of his comments it published and how they were presented.

Carol Pine, a public member, asked Mech if he considered himself a public figure; he replied he did not. Pine then posed the same question to the paper; Pam Fine, managing editor, answered that it did consider Mech a public figure because he works for the University of Minnesota and receives public funding. Pine then asked what the paper’s standards are for news coverage of public figures. Fine said that many factors influence how a story about a public figure is played, among them importance, interest and the effect on the community.

Media member Trish Van Pilsum asked the paper how large a factor exclusivity of a story is in determining its placement. Fine answered that generally speaking, when a newspaper has exclusive stories, it plays them prominently.

Public member Ann Barkelew asked the paper to explain what standards it uses to judge a story as fair. Fine answered that the paper considers balance and accuracy fundamental to fairness. She said the paper asks itself if its stories present the right picture, if it’s right to hold a person up to questioning, and if the story is clear and makes sense.

Public member Laurisa Sellers said that while the stated purpose of the article was to raise legitimate questions, it seemed to go beyond that and, in effect, pointed readers in the direction of answers. She asked the paper if giving readers direction fit its journalistic standards. Meersman responded that his findings were substantiated by numerous people.

Media member Maureen Reeder said she thought the story was an example of solid journalism. “As a journalist, often you end up reporting what your gut tells you. That’s an important part of journalistic practice,” she said.

“Along with respecting the gut feeling of the reporter, we must respect the gut feeling of the interviewee,” added public member Terry Thompson.

Many members were troubled by the placement and tone of the article. “This was a story with a point of view,” media member Ron Handberg said. “I’d be far more comfortable if the paper had neglected the copyright and instead labeled it analysis.” Barkelew agreed. “The headline carries a powerful punch. If I read no more, I would think this is a bad guy.”

Mech also questioned the fairness of the Star Tribune’s corrections policy. Included in the original article was the statement: “Mech serves on various boards that directly or indirectly control much of the funding for wolf research projects.” A correction ran in the Corrections column on page two on November 19, 1995, stating: “An article on Page 4A July 23 incorrectly stated that Phil Sauer was executive director of the International Wolf Center in Ely, Minn. He was interim administrator. The article also said L. David Mech serves on various boards that directly or indirectly control much of the funding for wolf research projects. Mech serves on one board and one scientific panel, neither of which controls funding.” Mech asked how that correction compared to the front-page presentation of the original accusation.

Rabbi Barry Cytron, a public member, said the story did more than raise questions. He called the story prejudicial and challenged the practice of making an assertion on the front page while placing the correction on page two. Fine responded that most newspapers anchor corrections in a set place so that readers don’t have to search for them. She added that if an error reaches the level where it seems unfair to put it inside, papers may elect to put it outside.

Sellers asked the Star Tribune if, when it ran the correction, it considered also noting that the story was based, in part, on anonymous sources who feared retaliation. Fine answered that the paper did not consider doing so because its policy is to keep corrections narrowly focused on facts. Sellers pressed the issue, saying that the fundamental reason for granting these sources anonymity was undercut by the correction. Meersman defended the use of the anonymous sources, saying that the correction did not say that Mech does not influence funding, but that he does not sit on boards. Fine explained that the paper allows the use of anonymous sources when it has multiple sources speaking to the same point, when they’re highly credible and their credibility is unimpugnable. In this case, she said, anonymous sources were used as secondary sources to support named sources.

Mech challenged the paper’s use of sources he deemed non-authoritative, specifically 1) photographer Jim Brandenburg, who commented on the scientific validity of Mech’s research, and 2) an IWC student volunteer who said Mech misused government vehicles. Mech questioned why these people were quoted rather than wolf researchers or, in the case of use of vehicles, his supervisor. He quoted the syndicated columnist William Raspberry who said, “But for the most part, we’d rather report the scandal we suspect than the service that we know.”

Fine said that Meersman asked Mech whom he should talk to and then interviewed them. Meersman said he tried to interview Mech’s supervisor, but found that Mech had faxed the supervisor and told him not to talk to Meersman, but to refer Meersman to the IWC lawyer. Fine said Brandenburg and the student volunteers were used as sources because they were eyewitnesses, not experts.

Determination 1: The Council upheld the complaint that the headline was prejudicial and that the framing set an unfair tone for the information that followed.

Concurring: Amaris, Barkelew, Cytron, Denny, Peterson, Pine, Pumarlo, Sellers, Seltzer, Thompson

Dissenting: Conner, Handberg, Hoben, Reeder, Smith, Van Pilsum

Abstaining: Anderson

Determination 2: The Council upheld the complaint that the article used inflammatory and prejudicial language.

Concurring: Amaris, Barkelew, Cytron, Denny, Hoben, Peterson, Pine, Pumarlo, Sellers, Seltzer

Dissenting: Conner, Handberg, Reeder, Smith, Thompson, Van Pilsum

Abstaining: Anderson

Determination 3: The Council denied the complaint that the article was based upon comments from sources who were anonymous, biased or lacked authority to judge his behavior.

Concurring: Barkelew, Conner, Cytron, Denny, Handberg, Hoben, Peterson, Pine, Pumarlo, Reeder, Smith, Thompson, Van Pilsum

Dissenting: Amaris, Sellers, Seltzer

Abstaining: Anderson

Determination 4: The Council denied the complaint that the article leveled charges against Mech without providing substantiation or context.

Concurring: Amaris, Conner, Cytron, Denny, Handberg, Hoben, Peterson, Pine, Pumarlo, Reeder, Sellers, Smith, Thompson, Van Pilsum

Dissenting: Barkelew, Seltzer

Abstaining: Anderson

Response of the news organization: Editor Carr responded that there were indeed errors of wording in the story but that they were corrected within the story; that Farley, the reporter, did not rely upon a hostile source for her background information but did her own background work from the extensive public record available about Ellis Olkon’s past; and that the Reader had not mischaracterized the disposition of the lawsuit. He said he believed that it was unnecessary to contact Ellis Olkon because Nancy Olkon had given adequate responses when she was interviewed for the story and that sources friendly to the Olkons had been interviewed (although they were not included in the story).

Discussion: Council members explored whether the errors in the article were substantive enough to qualify as defamatory and whether Ellis Olkon should have been interviewed before publication. Regarding contact prior to publication, Carr said the Reader did not need Ellis Olkon’s input because there was an extensive public record of his history, including his disbarment from the practice of law for five years. Olkon said he had been pardoned in 1992, and complained that even though the Reader knew this it didn’t include it in the article.

Olkon pointed to the practice of reporters’ repeating errors in drawing from stories that have run in other newspapers and magazines. Council member Parry asked if Olkon had contacted the Star Tribune, which he said had run several incorrect stories about him over the years, to ask that the public record be corrected, and he said he had not.

Council members noted that in terms of space and graphics the Reader story was about both Olkons and they questioned why, given that focus, Ellis was not interviewed. Carr acknowledged that the story needed Ellis Olkon in it to make it interesting and that “maybe it was not best to just leave it to Nancy” to comment.

On the matter of defamation, Olkon said he was never accused by federal officials of having a financial interest in the Bunny Hutch. Carr admitted this was an error but said that the sentence immediately following it (saying Ellis was never charged with any crime related to the Bunny Hutch) corrected the error. The second page noted that Olkon’s involvement was unsubstantiated rumor. Olkon questioned why the Reader was repeating “unsubstantiated rumor.”

On the third complaint, of inaccurate characterization, Olkon complained that the Reader’s choice of the term “thrown out,” had a different meaning from the term “dismissed,” which was stamped on the court document. Carr said the Reader is prone to use vernacular and that he considered the terms interchangeable.

Olkon also complained that the Reader showed bias by not publishing a letter pointing out errors in the article until after the election, although it was received in time to have run it before the election. Carr acknowledged that the letter defending the Olkons had run late, but denied bias. He said the letter was ready to go in the issue before the election, but somehow didn’t get in: “It’s non-defensible. I can explain it, but I can’t excuse it.”

Determination #1: The Council sustained the complaint that the Reader was unfair in failing to give Ellis Olkon a chance to comment on his own behalf. Dissenting council member Stanley said that, given the fact that the public record had stood uncorrected for 15 years, it would have been admirable to contact him, but not reprehensible not to.

Concurring: Denny, Graham, Handberg, Hilger, Hoben, Kostouros, LeGrand, Peterson, Pumarlo, Sellers, Seltzer, Smith, Thompson, Vargas

Dissenting: Parker, Parry, Sorensen Craig, Stanley

Abstaining: Anderson

Determination #2: The Council voted to dismiss the complaint that the Reader defamed Ellis Olkon. Parry said that the errors showed no malice, and Stanley said there was no serious misimpression created by the errors in details.

Concurring: Denny, Hoben, Kostouros, Graham, LeGrand, Parker, Peterson, Pumarlo, Sellers, Seltzer, Smith, Thompson, Vargas

Dissenting: Hilger, Peterson, Pumarlo

Abstaining: Anderson, Handberg

Determination #3: The Council voted to dismiss the complaint that the Reader unfairly characterized the Olkons’ lawsuit against Andrew.

Concurring: Denny, Hoben, Kostouros, Pumarlo, Smith, Graham, LeGrand, Peterson, Sellers, Seltzer, Thompson, Vargas

Dissenting: Handberg, Hilger, Parker, Pumarlo

Abstaining: Anderson