Where
is the news in telling the public that in the heat of a political campaign,
volunteers may violate a law or a policy on behalf of their favored candidate?
If the
Herald-Standard considers that to be a big news flash, there’s a serious lack
of real-world insight in that building.
This
one-source story, quoting a Harrisburg attorney, goes to great pains to explain
the obvious. It also implies strongly that two volunteers for the campaign of
judicial candidate Douglas Sepic – one of whom used a Laurel Highland School district
fax machine to send out campaign-related material, and the other an Albert
Gallatin Area School district teacher who sent home some type of vote-for-Sepic
letter with her students – fit in the “overzealous” category.
This
Harrisburg attorney, further identified as an “election expert,” is quoted as
saying that local campaigns, whether for a borough council seat or a judicial
seat, are “complex.”
While
running a campaign may be complex, it is pretty simple to figure out what the
real stories should be here.
The
real story is not, and should not be, about judicial candidate Douglas Sepic. Although
there may be some degree of guilt by association or insinuation, we’ll give you
that he cannot be held responsible for everything that his supporters (and
maybe his non-supporters) may do on his behalf.
Taken
to extreme ridiculousness, if a guy robbed a liquor store while wearing a “Vote
for Sepic” button on his lapel and drove away in a car with a “Vote for Sepic”
bumper sticker, would or should that have any real bearing on Sepic, personally
or professionally?
No, the
real thrust of Herald-Standard follow up should be probing the two incidents
that have come to light, neither of which directly involves Douglas Sepic.
First
up: The reported use of a LH fax machine by Melvyn Sepic, Douglas Sepic’s
father who just so happens to be a member of the LH school board. We still don’t
know how many faxes were sent, if this was an isolated incident, or if it is
common practice for LH board members (not just M. Sepic) to use public
resources for personal or political business.
We don’t
know what, if any, measures are being taken to punish M. Sepic. And we sure don’t
know if this rises to the level of something serious, such as an ethics, school
board or crimes code violation. Wouldn’t it make sense to call some experts in
those fields, to gain their perspectives? (Or call the other eight LH school
board members?)
Next
up: The use of AG students as political pack mules. All we know is that a
teacher was reportedly suspended for this activity. But we still don’t know
this teacher’s name, or whether she’s back to work, or whether she has appealed
the suspension, or whether such activity violates the school code. Again, how
hard would it be to find some experts in this area to get some perspectives?
(Or call the nine AG school board members?)
We can’t
really fault AG for not releasing the name, because we’re not even certain they’ve
been asked to do that. You’d think that a news reporter would make asking for
the name the first order of business; this is, after all, a public employee
being paid for by tax dollars. If the district has a legitimate and legal
reason for not releasing the name, we would love to hear it.
A
prior Herald-Standard story made mention that D. Sepic does have relatives
working in the AG district. It makes a world of difference if the teacher who
distributed a letter on his behalf is or is not a relative of his. If it is, it
might lead the public to believe that the teacher was trying to help him win.
If it isn’t, the public might conclude that someone was trying to tarnish his
name and undermine his campaign.
Instead
of stories that involve hard questions in the quest to further examine and
illuminate unsavory practices, readers were treated to a piece of
fluff as soft as a roll of Charmin. Weeks after they were first reported on, readers
still have no idea whether either of these school-related activities even
qualifies as a potential crime or ethics violation.
One
thing is for sure: You can’t characterize the Herald-Standard as being
overzealous in pursuing these two stories.
No comments:
Post a Comment