One Paper In Power?

This weekend, the JG finished up its "When One Party Rules" editorial seies (which has been generating a lot of reader feedback).

Last week, Tracy Warner, who was the driving force behind the series, accused Allen County Commissioners PIO John McGauley of violating the state open records law because he was taking two days to provide him with some documents Warner had requested.

"He thought the law said I had 24 hours [to fulfill the request]," said McGauley, "when I actually have seven days."

There was a reason Warner's request wasn't immediately granted. "I was going through 18 megabytes of information to make sure his request was being fulfilled," said McGauley. "In the meantime, Tracy accused me of violating the law, keeping the county's secrets, even burying records so that we can't produce them."

So McGauley called Journal Gazette editor Craig Klugman to complain.  Three hours later, Warner posted this retraction on his blog:

An earlier post, which I have since removed, said that county commissioners spokesman John McGauley was to have provided information about county insurance records within 24 hours of my request under state law. In fact, the law requires a response within 24 hours, which McGauley did provide, and the records within seven days.

McGauley has a good reputation for fulfilling public records requests, and I apologize to John for implying otherwise.      

The incident is a good illustration of how important it is to double-check all your facts before throwing around allegations. That's one of the reasons why I have a problem with the concept of an "investigative editorial," which is what all the "When One Party Rules" editorials ostensibly were.

Here's something else I don't get: The Journal Gazette has an excellent investigative reporting staff. Why didn't the paper commission one of those reporters to do a thorough once-over of all that happens in Republican-dominated county government? Then the editorial staff could have done what it does best: write editorials. (Notice I didn't say investigate.)

That's not to say that persons who aren't professional investigative journalists can't do investigative journalims -- after all, I've done plenty of it myself, and I'm certainly not a professional.

But even non-professionals have an obligation to be thorough and fair, and Warner's retracted allegations indicate that he doesn't always go over everything with a fine-toothed comb before declaring something to be an outrage.

We all make mistakes, but Warner's rush to judgment was especially damaging in this case, because it cast a shadow over the entire editorial series. Was it too built upon a similar lack of thoroughness? In the end, it's the paper's credibility that's affected, and not in a positive way.

That's one of the reasons why I think he and the rest of the JG editorial board ought to leave the investigating to the professionals.

They won't have to look far.

UPDATE: The full text of Warner's retracted post:

COUNTY INSURES SECRECY

In negotiating its health insurance contracts for workers, the city of Fort Wayne gets a share of the rebates that big pharmaceutical makers give to the city's prescription provider. On Monday morning, I called some city offices to find out how much money was involved. The woman who usually handles the insurance was out, but a co-worker handled the call. She added up the checks and called back around 12:45 p.m. The answer -- $75,000 so far this year.

Before calling the city, I left a written request for county commissioners spokesman John McGauley seeking to find out whether the county gets the same kind of rebate and, if so, how much. That afternoon, he sent me an e-mail indicating he would let me know what is in the county's records. By law, the county had to respond to that request within 24 hours, or about 8:45 a.m. this morning. I'm still waiting on an answer.

I suspect the county has little information about its own insurance plan on site. In 2002, when a group of county workers demanded more information on the county's health insurance, they were shown the "insurance file" and it was a joke. This is how the JG reported it back then:

In one folder, memos from 1983 were mixed with newspaper clippings, a nearly blank legal pad and other memos from the late 1990s. Because of this, it couldn't be determined whether insurance bids were included in the files.

(A) commissioner's memo said all public records have been released except ones that contain personal information.

Both the county and the city use brokers who receive commissions for their insurance. The county very likely leaves all that pesky paperwork in the hands of its broker so none of the county's own employees have direct access to it.

A commenter asked about the number of Warner's allegations.  I count three:

• The headline, which implied that the county was taking deliberate steps to ensure secrecy

• That McGauley was in violation of the public records statute

• That the county was actually burying records with its broker so that it could skirt public records laws