Stepping Out Of The Closet

[Jim O'Bryan]

In another thread Joan Roberts brings up that all plans should be put out for all to see. I question the job of the Observer, and where I play myself as the publisher.

This is an exercise not based in fact
I am invited to a meeting that shows plans for 3 blocks of development, I am asked to keep it quiet until the land is purchased and financing secured.

When should it be thrown into sunlight?

Immediately which could cause hold outs(their right) and forces the developer to redesign, or kill the project?

Wait till it is announced by the planning department or developer?

Or when do we drag these projects out of the closet?

---

When do we drag the plans of the city into the light?

Other civic groups funded by taxes?

Just curious on where this falls? Where the Observer should fall, and for that matter myself.


.

[Mark Crnolatas]

Tough one. I found out in another city some time back, that if you told someone from the newspaper to keep something "quiet", it still showed up in print. Could it be maybe they WANT the "leak" ? Another question to ask yourself, would be why would they invite someone from a newspaper NOW if they want to keep it quiet until sometime in the future? Why not THEN invite someone from the media to prevent the possiblity of the subject being printed? In my opinion, I think you have to follow your own "gut feeling" on this one.

I wonder what someone from the Plain Dealer would do? Hmmm..


Mark C.

[c. dawson]

I think you could essentially hint that there is potential development of a certain type, but not give any real specifics until it's been announced. There's a long history of "off the record" discussions including the media, and for the longest time, those "off the record" comments and discussions have truly been ... off the record. I think in the recent past, given the glut of 24-hour news outlets, no one respects the "off the record" comment. My academic background is in history, but I spent 4 years in college working on the daily newspaper, and I took the historic view; if the person asked me to keep it off the record, I did, because it often resulted in a better relationship with that person; it was not advesarial, but it was more working in tandem with the same goals, if not the same ways of achieving that goal.

I think we should go back to that old practice, because if you do it right, you can whet the public's appetite for more information, without compromising your relationship with the party that asked you to keep it quiet ... so when it is finally broken, everyone benefits, and most of all, you gain a reputation that you can be trusted, and as good as your word.

There was a time when a person's word was their bond ... we should all strive to return to that concept and be able to trust one another.

[David Anderson]

If they invited you to a meeting, then they're hoping an LO article will either spur or kill the proposal.

I think a better question might be what if you, or your crack reporting staff "uncovered" sensitive material either by digging through a garbage can or by finding an unmarked envelope left under the wiper blade of your little British car. (Hell, an envelope just might cover the entire windshield.)

The Washington Post went to President Kennedy and said it had "uncovered" reliable information the U.S. was to invade Cuba. President Kennedy acknowledged that it was true but persuaded the Post to delay as a matter of national security.

My advice: when sensitive information is uncovered or shared, go to the powers with the story and judge their reaction. There is no black and white answer here. Ultimately, it's up to your best judgment. But as long as you give the powers the opportunity to react and you make a strategic decision to share or not to share what else can you do?

Lakewood's security is in your hands, Jim.

[Ivor Karabatkovic]

look at it this way.

I had a case study in journalism about the columbine incident and how the media handled the situation. If you don't know the who, what, where, when, why and how, (who, why and how being the main thing in this case) then you don't report it because it will create a media frenzy.

look at the story about the teen that drowned in Euclid. A news story was released stating who, what, where, when, but not why and how because they didn't know those yet. That's good journalism.. with columbine the number of gunmen went from 1 to 2 back to 1 and the number of injuries and fatalities was way off.

good timing is the key to all of this.

as much as I hate saying this, I think it's up to the developer. You could probably answer the who, what, where, and why- but leave the when and how out.

[Joan Roberts]

There are two answers:

Anything involving The City in fact SHOULD be done in broad daylight. Wasn't that one of the major complaints about the west end thing, that the previous mayor did everything behind closed doors.

If tax dollars are involved, I believe the public has a right to know what the government is promising.

As for private development, different story. If Owner A and Buyer B are working on a deal, and they ask you to keep it under your hat, I think you weigh the need for confidentiality against the need of the public to know.

The other possibility is that you print a story before the deal is done and the deal never gets done. Then you look like a doofus. Ask the DA in the Ramsey case and all the media who fell for that bit.

Public or private, I know reporters keep things quiet all the time, at least some of them. I also know the debate about what to keep quiet and when is never-ending among journalist types.

----

But just to clarify, since you brought my name up. What I wonder about, even more than back-room deals, are public officials and their friends in media saying, "big things are in the works that will solve all your problems but we can't tell you about them right now"

Again that's what Michael Corleone told Tessio and Clemenza.

That conjures up a secret priesthood of a few anointed ones that's more troubling than the deal itself

[Jim O'Bryan]

If they invited you to a meeting, then they're hoping an LO article will either spur or kill the proposal.

David

When they want the story they ask. When they want the privacy they ask.

Most realize that I do not write for the paper.

But I do speak my mind on the board.

I think Joan nailed it.


FWIW


Jim

[David Anderson]

Jim -

If you are asked to attend a meeting and everyone knows you are the publisher of the LO then they are hoping to use you to advance their agenda regardless if they say "write" or "don't write." For what other reason would they share sensitive information with someone who has no access to the information otherwise?

It's just my opinion, but, as publisher, you should act in a way that promotes the agenda of the LO and its constituents.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Jim -

If you are asked to attend a meeting and everyone knows you are the publisher of the LO then they are hoping to use you to advance their agenda regardless if they say "write" or "don't write." For what other reason would they share sensitive information with someone who has no access to the information otherwise?

It's just my opinion, but, as publisher, you should act in a way that promotes the agenda of the LO and its constituents.

David

While I certainly agree with what you say, I am also not so sure. Let's not just talk about me but the advisory board. Ken Warren, DL Meckes, Jeff Endress, Steve Davis, Heidi Hilty have all been on various committees, and serious meetings behind closed doors. I would like to think it is because these are some of the best open thinkers in town. Yet none to my recollection have ever written about those meetings.

Maybe it is because we are simple people. If you say "don't tell" we think they mean do not tell.

If we take a step farther back and look at the Observers it gets even more impressive. Members from almost every department at City Hall including two in the Mayor's Office. Planning director and head of the Building Department. Two Law Directors, new Finance Director, All the members of the School Board, I think a good majority of the last couple Charter Commissions, everyone on Council, etc. What should they do, as they have signed on to this OPEN discussion board?

As for why I am invited? I bring Phoenix Brand Coffee wherever I go. I am a very cheap date.


,

PS - Everyone is encouraged to bring the discussion into the open as soon as possible, but in the end to each their own.

[dl meckes]

...have all been on various committees, and serious meetings behind closed doors.

Thanks for the opportunity to talk about so-called "closed door" meetings.

The City of Lakewood enjoys very serious participation by committed citizens to make public policy, make improvements to the City, and shape the direction the City is taking.

Citizens can send letters of interest to the Mayor's office (or their Council reps) to request consideration to be nominated to a board or commission.

City Boards and Commissions include the following:
Board of Zoning Appeals
Board of Building Standards/Architectural Board of Review/Sign Review
Planning Commission
Civil Service Commission
Community Reinvestment Area Housing Council
Loan Approval Board
Keep Lakewood Beautiful
Lakewood Heritage Advisory Board
Citizens Advisory Committee

Some of these Boards and Commissions have executive sessions that are not open to the public because they entail discussion of private information, such as a citizen's financial records. These sessions comprise only a small portion of a meeting, but the majority of any meeting is properly open to the public.

Board members are free to discuss decisions or recommendations that come from the public portion of meetings, but may not do so for a variety of reasons, none of which stem from any vow of secrecy.

Information usually flows from the Boards to the City and any press releases are handled by the departments that are involved at City Hall.

I have discussed some things I have learned from various board meetings on the Deck, such as information regarding storefront redevelopment. The City doesn't seem to send out press releases every time somebody decides to make such improvements (but I wish they would).

Attending the meetings of the Architectural Review Board will give citizens a preview of upcoming projects, but I'll warn you that their meetings can be very long. The volunteers on that board give the City a huge amount of time!

Each of the citizens serving on these boards might be making a commitment to monthly meetings and between two to five years of service. When a citizen is appointed to a board, it is not unusual to receive a very thick three-ring binder that might contain such enticing bed-time reading as the Zoning Code. Each of the board members must familiarize themselves with the contents of those binders.

Many boards also run using Robert's Rules of Order, which may also entail more homework.

These boards steer Lakewood by their independent decisions and recommendations. Because the board meetings are open to the public, anyone who wishes to either hear or comment on the proceedings is welcome to do so (like Council meetings).

[David Anderson]

I see the situation(s) clearer now. Thanks.

You have folks volunteering on the LO's advisory board (and writing columns from time to time) who are also on other committees/boards.

This isn't a situation where these community leaders/thinkers "work" for the LO on a full-time, professional basis, beholden to delivering news at any cost and the virtues of journalistic integrity. These folks have professions and careers outside the LO. So, can I assume that those who ask Warren, Meckes, Endress, Davis, Hilty and yourself to sit on committees don't see the LO as a real "news" paper? Would/do these committees ask PD, Sun or C&P advisory/editorial board members to attend? And if they do, would they expect those participants to keep quiet if something was deemed "newsworthy?"

I do like the fact that Lakewood elected officials and public employees often comment on the OD. However, I wouldn't assume they are sharing everything they know on any issue.

I do appreciate the exchange and do enjoy all the LO offerings. I am a big fan and look to get fellow Lakewood citizens to join and participate.


Where do you want to go with the LO (print and on line)? What role will it fill in the future? Will it continue to provide community forums (facilitate discussion), light features and information - again, I'm a big fan - or do you see a role for real hard hitting (even investigative) journalism - a real "news" paper. The latter keeps the need to know at the forefront.

Take the Beck Center issue, for example. The OD has helped me understand some of the issues involved and is chock full of opinion and anecdotes but the whole issue deserves a real, no holds barred, investigative journalistic effort (I'm not a journalist but I know journalism when I read it). Is this an issue the LO has the resources, expertise and interest to take on? Does the type of journalistic effort I'm describing fit into the LO's current or future role? If not, it seems that your volunteers will continue to be invited to closed-door meetings.

I'm a coffee smell-er not a drinker. My nose knows Phoenix coffee when it smells it.

[dl meckes]

This isn't a situation where these community leaders/thinkers "work" for the LO on a full-time, professional basis, beholden to delivering news at any cost and the virtues of journalistic integrity. These folks have professions and careers outside the LO. So, can I assume that those who ask Warren, Meckes, Endress, Davis, Hilty and yourself to sit on committees don't see the LO as a real "news" paper? Would/do these committees ask PD, Sun or C&P advisory/editorial board members to attend? And if they do, would they expect those participants to keep quiet if something was deemed "newsworthy?"

Occupation or avocation does not prevent a citizen from serving the city on a board.

I have never been asked to keep any knowledge gained from a board or committee meeting quiet because those meetings are public.

A good example of this had to do with Stan Austin covering the budget hearings. He was the only reporter there - actually, probably the only "civilian" there. Those meetings went on for days!

The question should be whether the newspapers send someone to cover all of the board meetings, and the answer is no, they don't.

Why not? The Observer uses volunteers and not all volunteers are willing to cover these meetings.

I've gone to several ARB meetings where things like the Vedda building plans on Berea Road were approved, the library expansion plan was approved, etc.

I didn't write those stories and I don't remember whether Ken or Jeff or someone else did (someone did, because I remember seeing those beautiful renderings in the LO).

I don't write about every meeting I sit in on because I don't have the time or energy to do that, not because I want to keep quiet about anything.

As a matter of fact, I have been asked to write articles by members of different boards and groups and I haven't done it because again, I have time bank issues.

David, we are all community activists who discuss things on the Deck or write articles or talk among ourselves about Lakewood. We are all "leaders." Some of our leaders have gone through the rigorous election process and some are leaders because they make the time to talk to others about concerns.

If you want to put someone who works or volunteers for the city, the schools or the library above you and think that they are unapproachable, that's your mistake. People in Lakewood answer their phone calls and emails. We each can have a tremendous impact if we just show up for things and communicate.

[David Anderson]

DL - I'm not sure what this means. Can you elaborate? You wrote, "If you want to put someone who works or volunteers for the city, the schools or the library above you and think that they are unapproachable, that's your mistake." I don't want to misinterpret. Thanks.

Jim's basic question was what should he or the LO do if asked to keep certain information gained through meetings from the public. (I'm thinking Jim didn't have the example of the city's public budget hearings in mind when posing his original question.)

I guess my answer to Jim boils down to what's the mission/vision/role of the LO. Is it to be a "news" paper or a community forum and source of information?

While occupation and avocation may not be a determining force in whether folks are asked to be on certain public boards these do impact whether certain folks are asked to attend non public meetings where information presented is to be kept private.

Again, I appreciate all the work you and the others have put into the LO project but do think Jim's original question is best answered by reflecting on the LO's role in our community.

[dl meckes]

I apologize because I think I misinterpreted your point and one of my hot buttons is the assumption that big secrets are being kept by "community leaders."

Another surrounds the LO "Advisory Board" because that title leads to huge misconceptions. Like "Advisers" advise or that advice is acted upon.

Your question of the role of the Observer is right on the mark. "Is it to be a "news" paper or a community forum and source of information?"

I think that's Jim's quandry, too.

Every developer or developer wanna-be has big plans for Lakewood. Jim probably hears more of these different ideas than anyone. The question of when to discuss the ephemera of potential plans is difficult.

I don't have that answer, either.

[Joan Roberts]

Your question of the role of the Observer is right on the mark. "Is it to be a "news" paper or a community forum and source of information?"

I think that's Jim's quandry, too.

.

Unless you changed it, the Observer's banner says it's "Lakewood's Only Newspaper"

I don't see the quandry.

I guess it's one thing to write stories about all the good stuff, and then carp when the job of reporting the not-so-happy news falls to the PD and Sun Post.

I know the schools put out a press release asking for help in getting the word out about the staph infection? Why didn't the Observer publish that?
The 'faux names" site did.

Because disease isn't part of the "brand"?

And why was it then necessary to dump on all the other media who DID do what the schools asked, which was publicize a rather (to this parent's mind, at least) a rather legitimate warning about a student related healt

Which way is it? If you're going to be a NEWSPAPER, you're going to publish the NEWS. Sometimes good, often bad. If you're going to be a Chamber of Commerce booster publication, that's OK, too. I don't expect bad news when I read Ohio magazine, either I expect glossy tributes to Minerva and Canal Winchester. Fihe. But don't constantly disparage the other outlets.

I know I'll get accused of "hating Lakewood"again for this, but hey, it's a pretty big city. Stuff happens. If you're going to ignore it or try to paint yellow happy faces over everything, then solve the quandry and take the word "newspaper" off your banner and stop slamming the other guys.

As for the original topic, I still contend it's more irritating to the general pubic to play the "I know something you don't know" game than it is to just keep quiet.