Monday, May 13, 2013

Missing the boat

Today’s front-page story, “Election expert says overzealous supporters can harm campaign” (Herald-Standard, May 13), not only misses the boat, it’s in a totally wrong harbor.
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