The Constitutional aspect of the Mayor Vs WSPD and questions…
I tuned in to listen to David Harris of the UT Law School who was the featured guest of Tom Watkins on 1560/WTOD. My question was related to the actual constitutional issue since there was a WSPD reporter allowed in during both events, were WSPD’s constitutional right of freedom to the press was violated? Does Kevin Milliken or any media person have a separate constitutional right? Professor Harris discussed that as far as the actual station’s constitutional right was not violated since a reporter was let in but stated that any public meeting any of us could attend. Since we are hearing a lot about the first amendment aspect of this, I was curious as to does this apply to a Station or to any reporter? This seems to also stem on what type of a meeting it is, I think we all agree that a press conference held in a public location is open to everyone, as well as a public meeting is of course open to the public. However this made me start thinking…
Let’s say as an example, there is a limit set by a governmental agency that only one reporter per media outlet is allowed, is that then unconsitutional? It’s preventing access to news reporting if the definition is going to be based on a per reporter basis rather than a per outlet basis. What about free lance journalists or bloggers? If they are excluded does that mean their constitutional rights are being violated by certain media outlets receiving preferential treatment?
This then led me to start thinking about the actual first amendment when it comes to press, the intial intent was “freedom of publication”, in the technical sense WSPD was not prevented from publication. So while I know this does not necessarily relate to just Toledo or Lucas County, I hope you will indulge me in the discussion of the actual Constitutional right of the “freedom of the press”. There are plenty of places to concentrate on agreeing/disagreeing with the Mayor or WSPD or both.
A paragraph that caught my attention at the Cornell School of Law:
Despite popular misunderstanding the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the first amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general.
If you really want to delve into the topic, this page from the CRS Annotated Constitution, entitled Freedom of Expression: Is There a Difference Between Speech and Press is one I recommend.
Another interesting place to visit is the The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press where it outlines many topics, one of which happens to be Journalists’ right of access :
Although the U.S. Supreme Court has said newsgathering deserves some First Amendment protection, it never has defined clearly the scope of that protection, nor restrictions that may be placed upon reporters’ activities.
Most courts have ruled that the First Amendment provides journalists no greater right of access to property than that enjoyed by the public. Therefore, when an event occurs on nonpublic forum public property or private property, reporters may not have the right to enter if the general public is not usually allowed in.
This bit of advice from the RCFP Handbook was also interesting:
If you are denied access to a place where a news event has occurred, you should determine whether the place is a public forum (such as a city street or park), a nonpublic forum public property (such as the county courthouse or jail) or privately owned property.
What does this mean for us? It appears if a press conference is going to be held in a public location all of us have the same rights of attendance. On Tom Watkin’s Toledo Today the Baltimore Sun case was brought up, it was also included in today’s Toledo Blade:
The extent of journalists’ access to public officials was the subject of a high-profile legal case in 2004 involving The Baltimore Sun and former Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich.
The governor ordered his administration to stop responding to calls or providing information other than that required under public records laws to two Sun staffers he accused of slanted and inaccurate reporting.
In February, 2005, a federal judge upheld the governor and, a year later, a federal appeals court also upheld the governor. The Sun opted not to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
How long this item stays as a topic of discussion is hard to predict but if you are interested in the actual constitutional discussion, I hope you share your thoughts.
I think the mayor’s office is showing clear signs of prior restraint. They don’t want Kevin Miliken in because they’re afraid he won’t report on it fairly. They cannot restrain him for what he will or won’t report. Now if the mayor decides not to hold any more press conferences and give WSPD only general information to the WSPD staff as a whole they’d be well within their rights. However denying Mr. Miliken access is limiting him as a journalist.
Let me elaborate. By denying Mr. Miliken, who relies on reporting news events for his job, they are eliminating a possiblity of him to further his career by limiting the news he can report. Certainly Mr. Miliken has an issue.
But if the Administration provides WSPD as a whole the information of what they are passing then there is no violation. I’d recommend to the Mayor if they want to continue this then to only issue press releases and deal with members of the media you like on only a one on one basis. But I believe the Mayor has certainly opened the city up to a costly lawsuit on WSPD and Mr. Miliken’s behalf. How will that fit into the new budget?
January 11th, 2007 at 10:22 amWSPD of course has the right to file suit, everyone has that legal right. However I think it’s going to be hard to argue that the station’s constitutional rights were violated since they did allow a news reporter in from WSPD. The City did not prevent WSPD from reporting the news, they prevented an additional member of WSPD’s staff from attending. However, I’m not a lawyer, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn recently, and it seems some of the different lawyers that have been asked have had differing views on this topic.
I do agree though the better solution would have been to have just let Kevin Milliken in unless the City is going to create a media policy that states only one media person per outlet or as you suggested, not hold any more public press conferences.
From a blogging standpoint a court case would of course create even more discussion, but from a City aspect I do find it very ironic that this has the potential of costing the City money at least from a defense standpoint and potentially an award if there is a monetary award placed on this if the case were to get that far. Especially since having listened to Kevin’s show one of the things he focuses on is the waste of taxpayer dollars.
I can’t even predict what will happen next, all I can predict is that WSPD will enjoy the increase in ratings, people who already have sides will probably stick to those sides and now I have to wonder if Brian Schwartz didn’t comment here because he didn’t think there was anything to add or if I’m being “banned” from City contact for some reason. (I am joking on that last line.)
January 11th, 2007 at 10:43 amThe first amendment states many things – it’s no different than when people read the Bible or the Qur’an or what ever book or passage that describes certain aspects as to behavior or admission or even rights. There will never be a complete or let’s say 100% of an agreement with any party as to it’s contents. What happened yesterday and the day before is nothing more than an embarasing moment it Toledo. In my opinion anybody and I mean anybody with the proper credentials should not be banned or refrained or even blocked from attending a press conference. If my wife were to attend any of these meetings then I would expect her to have the necessary documents to be able to attend. The comparisons of the two events between Toledo and Maryland are quite different. The following paragraphs will detail the differences:
as an added note – the following info is no different than findings in any other news outlet so please read thouroughly to those reading this and make your own “free” judgment on this incident.
The Case For Radio News
And The WSPD News Staff
By Cassie Wilson
Some are trying to compare this ban on WSPD News by the Toledo Mayor’s office to a recent case in Maryland involving a former Baltimore Sun columnist and reporter.
There are several key differences in our sitution — some very strong differences.
1. Maryland Governor Ehrlich barred columnist Michael Olesker and reporter David Nitkin from one-on-one interviews with any member of his staff. This came after the governor filed a list of more than 20 grievances, citing errors or bias in reports written by these Sun staffers.
WSPD News — the entire news department — was banned eight months ago from speaking with any member of the mayor’s administration. No member of our news department is able to ask questions of any administration member. This has seriously hampered coverage of news, especially during flooding in parts of the city, which affected public safety.
Not only is our entire staff banned from speaking with anyone in the administration, the mayor’s spokesperson stopped notifying our newsroom of public appearances and news conferences — eight months ago. This was the time that the mayor was told he was not welcome as a guest on WSPD talk shows until he apologizes for calling the morning talk host a liar. (Incidentally, that comment is recorded.)
WSPD’s Talk Shows are under the program director’s direction. WSPD’s newscasts are separate and distinct from the station’s talk programming.
2. The Sun never was barred from attending press conferences and never was stopped at the door. Coverage of state events and the administration continued with other reporters.
WSPD has been stopped at the door to the mayor’s office suite and not allowed in. The mayor will not answer questions from any WSPD reporter during a news conference. And to reiterate, we’re not notified of any media events involving the city administration.
We do not have the resources of a major market newspaper. We have a staff of three and at any one time, one, possibly two reporters available to cover news conferences. To bar a reporter from our news organization from a news conference severely hampers our news department’s ability to inform the public, and specifically targets WSPD News as a whole.
3. The Sun’s columnist was cited for misquotes and outright lies.
The reporter cited by the mayor has never engaged in off-topic or heated questioning during a news conference. In his role as news reporter/anchor, he has not mischaracterized or misquoted the mayor.
The case involving The Baltimore Sun involved allegations of “sloppy” reporting and “unbalanced” articles. This never has been the case with WSPD news. In fact, both Mayor Carty Finkbeiner and his spokesman, Brian Schwartz, have told our reporters that their issue is not with our news coverage, which they acknowledge as fair and accurate, but with station programming.
To bar WSPD News reporters from covering open news conferences is a violation of the First Amendment
Also as added note:
In my opinion – to all the “Public” officials;
Your job, your comments even your ideas reflect upon the people who got you there. If you are unable to perform your job accordingly then I suggest you step down and allow someone else who can handle the heat step in. Remember it’s our tax dollars that fill your pockets, it’s our tax dollars that keep the buildings that you work in light heated and cooled, There are a number of you that are in now that I respect with every ounce of soul in me, but there are a few that I believe can do a little better with current issues. Again that’s my opinion.
roman
January 11th, 2007 at 10:48 amThere you have it, my husband in his capacity as the Press Release person for his favorite radio station…WSPD.
I disagree with you on the validity of the Balitmore case, it demonstrates very clearly that a governmental entity is not required to send information to media outlets beyond what they can demand thru public access laws.
That has been a part of this discussion as WSPD has stated that the Mayor has not informed them of events. He’s not required to from the way I understand that case to have been decided.
January 11th, 2007 at 10:57 amWhich is why I plan on listening to 105.5 this afternoon around 3:00pm.
January 11th, 2007 at 11:05 amLOL
Everybody needs to shoulder their share of the responsibility on this brouhaha.
WSPD has become almost juvenile in their programming since the change in personnel/programming last year. The morning and afternoon drive programming has lost the depth and interest it once had, now resembling a ‘morning zoo’, libertarian recruitment infomercial and anti-establishment rantings more than the issue-oriented (local and national) programming of the past.
Putting that aside, Carty and staff have given the station nothing but ammunition. That Carty cannot handle with some dignity criticism cannot be surprising to any of us who have lived in Toledo for awhile. To see him attempt to shut out WSPD is typical. Expect to see furniture or coffee cups thrown and legal briefs filed soon…
I’ve thought Carty a self-obsessed politician since he spoke to my high school civics class in 1976. Why Toledoans keep electing him to positions of influence mystifies me.
Carty’s wrong here. He should admit his temper got the better of him and move on. Toledoans should explore their options on Carty before more damage is done.
January 11th, 2007 at 11:11 am“Roman”, I see you had no response to the real issue. Anyway, I know you like WSPD, there are times I listen to WSPD, I don’t have anything personally against either them or the Mayor. I don’t think it serves any of us to allow personal bias to eliminate our ability to try to be objective.
I wanted to focus on the constitutional aspect because I am interested in what people think about that. I already think we have established that this could have been avoided by the Mayor and the degree of responsibility as to who is more responsible for how it came to this fluctuates depending on who you are. In the end he is the elected official, no one can argue that aspect of it.
January 11th, 2007 at 11:12 amKaren, I can’t disagree that it’s obvious that the Mayor should have taken a different route of action. Giving someone who you feel rightly or wrongly is criticizing you more attention isn’t exactly the way most of us would have handled this.
Yet, since the claim of a violation of freedom of the press has been made, it would be interesting to hear from the Law Director as to how he interpreted this in giving his advice on the situation.
January 11th, 2007 at 11:17 amOne wonders if 1) the Law Director feels comfortable giving advice that Carty doesn’t want to hear 2) does Carty listen to that advise and 3) does Carty feel he can make up the rules to suit his desires.
January 11th, 2007 at 11:29 am“Toledoans should explore their options on Carty before more damage is done.”
There is a recall option in the city charter.
January 11th, 2007 at 11:51 am“To bar WSPD News reporters from covering open news conferences is a violation of the First Amendment”
The courts will decide should it come to that.
In the mean time; “The Sun filed a lawsuit in federal district court, arguing that the ban violated the First Amendment rights of the two journalists by denying them the same opportunities to seek information as other news organizations and citizens. The judge dismissed the case, ruling that the Sun was seeking special access beyond what is granted to the general public, and that the governor was within the law to deny that special access to the writers because he did not like what they wrote about him.”
http://www.rtnda.org/communicator/showarticle.asp?id=256
January 11th, 2007 at 11:54 amLisa – in my first post, I – too – found the same Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press website – and the same articles you quoted. I think you raise valid points about what the First Amendment means. There are numerous court cases, but none seem to be close enough to this situation for there to be conclusions drawn about the specifics.
One quote I found says that the decision shouldn’t be “arbitrary.” If the mayor set a policy that only one reporter from each news outlet was permitted, I’d not have a problem with that because all would be treated the same. Which means that if both Kevin Milliken and Brian Wilson showed up, only one would be allowed…or if Tom Troy and Tom Walton of The Blade showed up, again, only one would be allowed.
But I don’t see that as the case here…
Maybe it’s the way things have been handled…sloppily and, seemingly, without good analysis of the consequences and impacts.
January 11th, 2007 at 12:25 pmMaggie, I’m sorry that I didn’t see you posted the Reporters Handbook as well, but it doesn’t surprise me that we both did our “homework”.
In the end maybe some good will come from this as a real policy might end up being developed that will make it clearer for all of us, bloggers included, as to what kind of access we can have.
January 11th, 2007 at 12:41 pmAgreed, Lisa – and I don’t mind that we both found the same resource and both blogged about it…seems like validation somehow.
And I’d love to have the local governments develop a policy about press access for bloggers…You already get a lot of press release notifications, so there seems to be an interest in reaching out to the blogosphere locally. I know that bloggers can make a request for any press release to be forwarded to them – since the notification is a public record – but I don’t know if government agencies can delay the notification…
January 11th, 2007 at 12:54 pmAgreed, on both, especially the validation part. I was sorry though because had I seen it I would have found it sooner and attributed it you.
January 11th, 2007 at 1:01 pmI think WSPD has a valid argument on the incident that occured Tuesday. Mr. Miliken himself has an argument that occured yesterday. I have not seen where the administration had any prior policy regarding “one reporter” and I think that is their folly.
I’d also be interested in reading the Ohio R.C. on Sunshine laws to see if any violation occured there.
The mayor is in a bind because while he or his staff might not have been ruled to have broken any laws there is still the perception of impropriety which could even be breaking ethics rules.
But like I’ve said I’ve never looked into either I just think there may be some standing to both.
January 11th, 2007 at 2:15 pmOkay, so who is going to formalize The Toledo/Lucas County Bloggers Press Association?
January 11th, 2007 at 2:27 pmlol – sorta – but what an idea!
That one I won’t volunteer for.
January 11th, 2007 at 2:39 pmRoland….not a bad idea, the Bloggers Association. Code of Ethics, by-laws, etc. Hmmmm…..don’t tempt me — I do need a full-time gig.
Of course, then any of us who are bloggers and who might disagree with the Mayor (or think that he’s generally a bonehead) would run the risk of being “Millikened” by the Mayor or his watchdog at any press conference or public meeting that we want to cover for our readers.
(And, yes, I just coined the term “Millikened”.)
January 11th, 2007 at 3:20 pmvery clever, T.L.!!!
January 11th, 2007 at 3:33 pmI’m quite sure that I would be #1 on the “Millikened List.”
…and I would proud to be in that top slot.
January 11th, 2007 at 3:55 pmSorry Cassie. Neither I nor the mayor have ever affirmed your newscasts as “fair and accurate”.
Your news department and your programming department are not that distinct since Kevin Milliken does both.
Nic from your station had a 20 minute sit-down interview with the mayor yesterday and sat at his dining room table today.
Brian Schwartz
January 11th, 2007 at 7:24 pmWelcome back Brian.
January 11th, 2007 at 8:24 pmI can honestly say that I did not have the option of voting for Carty or Ford. I knew that neither one of them were going to accomplish the job that is required of them. I would not of chosen the lesser of two evils either. Carty is in and I am not going to complain about him because I did not vote for him in or out. I now live in Toledo and rest assure that on mayoral election day I will not choose the lesser of two evils if it’s presented again. I have the right to vote as well as the right to not vote. With that being said regardless to the past events I will however express my opinion on many aspects of my “employees” (city government)
. As long as I pay my taxes both state and local my opinion will be heard ( well at least only if you read my blog
). I hope that the mayor or his assistants are creating a document where it states the allowed number of personnel to attend a public meeting. I hope that if such a document is being created that all of the bases are covered, because I bet you if there’s a loop hole in it you and I as well as all of your wonderful readers we will be back here talking about it.
January 11th, 2007 at 9:18 pmWell, not only does my charming husband use my blog to post WSPD press releases but to promote his blog too? What was that about not wanting to “use me” to get traffic and to do this on your own?
Hmmm Maybe you learned from the WSPD school of thought?
Seriously though, there shouldn’t need to be rules because it should be very simple, public place – total access but if this is going to be a continuing issue then it is better to address it now to save us all the drama and the possible legal issues.
January 11th, 2007 at 9:28 pmThe Mayor’s conference room is not a public place. The area is secured and access is restricted.
Press conferences held in that room are not public events. If we let the public in, the media would not be able to get done what they need to get done.
Press conferences in public places are, of course, public events.
By the way, I’d invite folks to watch the coverage at http://www.wspd.com. As Kevin is trying to force his way into a secured section of the mayor’s office (that door is ALWAYS locked), I said to him, “I’m not ready to let you in YET.”
Did I violate WSPD’s First Amendment Rights, or did they choose to act badly and stampede into an area into which they had not yet been invited. You watch the tape and decide.
January 11th, 2007 at 11:01 pmThis isn’t the first time that “Con Dough” Carty’s disrespected a reporter. A few years back, Con Dough Carty shoved a female WSPD reporter on two separate occasions when she asked him questions about his unethical condominum sale for the new OC World Headquarters.
January 11th, 2007 at 11:28 pmWell anonymous, if you have a link for that story, I’d appreciate it. I do remember the whole condo deal but not a female WSPD reporter. I’m not making an accusation, I truly don’t remember that as being one of the things the Mayor has been accused of.
January 11th, 2007 at 11:45 pmBrian, that was one of the main questions I had earlier which you in your response answered. I wasn’t clear on the determination of the location of the press conference as being one that was open to the public nor not. That to me and I know to others was a part of this topic. Thank you for the clarification on that.
January 12th, 2007 at 1:35 am“Did I violate WSPD’s First Amendment Rights, or did they choose to act badly and stampede into an area into which they had not yet been invited. You watch the tape and decide.”
I think you, personally, acted badly.
The Mayors Executive Assistant acting as a bouncer or door man.
As it has been said a picture is worth a thousand words.
You could have phoned the police and had the people ejected or removed from the press conference but no you decided to be the bouncer.
The image is not one of Pride, is it?
January 12th, 2007 at 5:23 amOne Government Center is a public building. Taxpayers are paying for those offices on the 22nd floor. The area is secured for security reasons due to events like 9/11, not to prevent reporters from covering a story. If they were trespassing, they should be escorted out by the police. You didn’t do that.
January 12th, 2007 at 8:24 amN.C.
Thank you very much for that insight that seems to be forgotten. Apparently Brian forgets what his role is for the mayor. If a bouncer is what you want to be then I suggest you head on over to one of Toledo’s many clubs and apply otherwise know your role and act accordingly. I will also add an OPINION that maybe we need to re-think the whole public and non-public areas.
example,
If let’s say the mayor has an announcement about “public” matters then it’s held in a public area.
If the mayor has an announcement about his staff then it’s kept behind closed doors.
Better yet doesn’t the city own many empty buildings in downtown. Heck remodel one of them and make it the “Public Announcement Department” or PAD for short. That way the public can attend and view for themselves what it feels like to be involved in the city’s growth.
January 12th, 2007 at 8:28 amHaving just read the Mayor’s other tantrum with regards to the visitation problem, and I apologize that it may appear to be directly related to the episode at the press conference, but there sure looks like there is a real need for a collective time out by the Mayor and his staff and have a rethink of the weeks events.
The war of words between the Mayor, a person with well over 20 years of public service, shows that he is not as professional as he claims to be. He can spout the words but his actions do not reflect the professionalism that he speaks of.
Let the dispute with WSPD go and get on with the business of the city, like ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
But, reading the news reports about the Mayor, who would want to meet with him?
January 12th, 2007 at 8:59 amIs the old Carty back?
“It shouldn’t matter. If a private citizen rode up the elevator to the 22nd floor of Government Center and asked to watch and listen at a Finkbeiner news conference, it’s not likely he’d be told to go away. Nor should he be, unless his behavior subsequently became disruptive during the event itself.”
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070112/OPINION02/701120334
January 12th, 2007 at 12:13 pmYou do have to pity Brian Schwartz [a little] because look at the person for whom he is speaking. I’ll bet Brian doesn’t know from minute to minute whether his boss will be in a rage or comatose.
Of course, his large salary could compensate for the bizarre behavior of the boss. Yet, surely he knew what he was getting into before he signed the lucrative contract.
Perhaps Brian could call his fellow Republican, Karl Rove, to see how he deals with a loony boss. They could compare survival notes.
January 12th, 2007 at 1:03 pmAfter reading some of the posts on the “public area” of the 22nd floor, I have to ask: what is the purpose of a press conference? I always thought, basically, it was to project a message, via various media, to the public…
Somehow, it doesn’t seem consistent with the purpose to try and restrict the public’s access by claiming the area in which the press conference is occuring is not ‘public’…(issues of space constraints, etc. excluded).
January 12th, 2007 at 1:43 pm“Somehow, it doesn’t seem consistent with the purpose to try and restrict the public’s access by claiming the area in which the press conference is occuring is not ‘public’…(issues of space constraints, etc. excluded).”
It would seem that the Mayor and staff only want “friendly” media there to get the messages they want to send.
If the Mayor and staff could just move and not given any more attention to the “feud” we would all benefit but this; he said this and he is a liar from both sides accomplishes nothing.
January 12th, 2007 at 2:13 pmWhat is the difference between a public meeting and a press conference?
January 12th, 2007 at 3:47 pmLisa:
January 12th, 2007 at 8:25 pmI’m posting in regards to message #28 (anonymous message). I did not post the mesage, but I’m willing to help back it up. I happen to remember this a little bit. This was at least ten years ago. There was a reporter for WSPD (I think her name was Trish or Tricia, or something along those lines). She asked Hizzoner about the condominum controversey, and she fell down. Some of the eyewitnesses (one of which was a WTOL reporter) said that it was an accident. Others claim that Hizzoner knocked her over when he was opening up his car door. This same incident happened twice…within months of the earlier one. After the first instance, I believe that someone from the station’s management wrote a letter to the mayor’s office complaining about his behavior. That reporter is no longer with the station.
I looked online for the articles, but nothing from 1996-1997 from the Blade is online. The Blade did report these stories; however it was one of those here today, gone tomorrow stories (which was common). A couple of Toledo websites (with an anti-Carty slant) reported it during the late 90’s, but they are since gone.
Either the reporter was a real clutz, or Hizzoner knocked her down. What’s the likelihood that the incident would happen twice.
I hope that this helps out. Thanks.
Thanks anonymous and yes I know you are not the same person, or at least not using the same ip address as the earlier anonymous.
I checked the Blade archives thru the online Library System too and was unable to find anything. Was the person you were thinking of Trisha Courtney? She was with WSPD for quite some time. I fully admit I don’t remember hearing about this incident but then again I also wasn’t paying as close to local issues then either.
January 12th, 2007 at 8:49 pmThis constitutional example can best be summed up in one example…next time I’m in Washington I will try to attend a White House press conference. Unlike Brian Schwartz, the secret service will be lauded for their courage in arresting me and taking me down. I wonder how many Blade reporters the White House lets into their press conferences.
January 12th, 2007 at 10:26 pmMr. Schwartz,
Your statements give the impression that either you or the Mayor believe that Mr. Milikin cannot do two separate jobs. The way I see it is, during the newscasts, he acts as a reporter – and never during a newscast has he stated “I think…” During the Eye-on-Toledo segment, he acts as a commentator, like many journalists have done on both a local and national level.
If your objection is to WSPD’s use of particular portions of the Mayor’s words during news broadcasts (which is what department was being covered), please reference the fact that NO media outlet presents the Mayor’s news conference in its entirety. The sound byte chosen may not be the Mayor’s first choice, but these decisions are made by every news organization separately (ask the President how he feels about it). Since the sound byte is here to stay, perhaps it is the Mayor’s best interest to pay more attention to what he says, not to dictate to any media outlet what they can and cannot report (even if it is for the “self-esteem” of the city.)
Now, what this whole mess seems to resolve around is the Mayor’s issue with WSPD “barking up a tree” he doesn’t want barked at. Specifically, the bike path and his issue with the Ottawa County Sheriff’s Office. I find that the issue of WSPD is that in both occasions, the Mayor may have given the appearance of using his official position for personal gain. Mind you, I do not say that this was his intent, but it certainly appears that way. The bike path was pushed through with little time for determining community support or objections, in an area that would be convenient for his personal use. By invoking his title either verbally or in writing at the jail, the Mayor appears to have sought to curry special favor. I would ask the Ottawa County Sheriff to produce the letter he received from the Mayor, to determine it’s exact wording and if or not it was printed on city stationary. (This would be an excellent Freedom of Information Act request – that letter is public record.)
In the interest of fairness, I invite the Mayor for a short-format interview to answer questions regarding this, just as the Program Director of WSPD consented to do, at his earliest convenience.
January 13th, 2007 at 8:52 amI’m sure Kevin is physically and mentally capable of doing two jobs. However, neither the mayor nor I are allowed to confront Kevin on his show because we have been banned. Kevin wants to be able to attend press conferences in the guise of a reporter, then go back to the studio and ridicule the mayor for an hour knowing that we won’t be able to respond.
That is why Kevin was banned. Contrary to what the administrator posted in his little poll, we did not ban WSPD. Their reporters are still welcome at our press conferences.
BTW, Brian Wilson’s show continues its freefall. He has now fallen from 3rd place to 8th place in the Arbitron ratings (that’s one heck of a freefall). Rush Limbaugh’s show ranks 3rd in the market during its timeslot. More than half of Rush’s listeners (mostly conservatives), can’t stomach Brian Wilson and tune him out. Fred’s ratings also dropped.
I wonder where Brian and Cassie will be moving to. . .
January 13th, 2007 at 9:39 pmRight Wing Toledo,
If you have not seen the mayor’s letter to the Ottawa County Sheriff, then you’re the only person in Toledo who has not. It is written on plain, white paper.
The Ottawa County Sheriff asserts that the mayor used his title. Carty said he did not. I’d challenge the Sheriff to produce a security tape that supports his allegation.
January 13th, 2007 at 9:42 pmBrian is correct, Right Wing, I know that 24 has or at least had the pdf online that included the original letter written by the Mayor and it was on his personal stationary. It’s also been stated that the Mayor has cell phone records to back up what he stated versus what was stated by the Sheriff’s office and the Mayor did deny he said he was the Mayor of Toledo.
January 13th, 2007 at 9:54 pmBrian, just as a good lawyer never asks a question in court unless he knows the answer, it’s wise not to challenge the Sheriff unless one knows with certainty what’s on the security tape.
January 14th, 2007 at 1:18 am“Brian Schwartz Said: @9:42 pm
Right Wing Toledo,
If you have not seen the mayor’s letter to the Ottawa County Sheriff, then you’re the only person in Toledo who has not. It is written on plain, white paper.
The Ottawa County Sheriff asserts that the mayor used his title. Carty said he did not. I’d challenge the Sheriff to produce a security tape that supports his allegation. ”
Then why don’t you and the Mayor do that; make the challenge and we can all read about the whole ridiculous episode as it makes more noisy headlines about our fair city or you and the Mayor can get on with the business of Chief Executive and his handler or just gag him in public and get on with the business at hand; running the city and not feuding with the media who in the end will report on more of the escapades and then you and the Mayor won’t like the press coverage.
January 14th, 2007 at 9:01 amWell Brian S. you’re wrong. I haven’t read the Mayor’s letter. I don’t, as most of my peers (we being that feared 78% of the population) are not taking/reading the Blade. Sorry to tell you. It’s a worthless tool to the Mayor now.
The Mayor is dead wrong on a couple of issues recently. It’s going to cost him – I had thought your hiring might create an opportunity for reason and logic in his office. Guess I was wrong.
January 14th, 2007 at 11:35 pmFor anyone who hasn’t yet read the Ottawa County Sheriff’s findings and the letter from Carty, you can read all 9 pages HERE
January 15th, 2007 at 12:05 amThis doesn’t make sense to me. The Ottawa County Sherrif’s office stated that carty threw his hands up at the end of the conversation. However, they also stated that they had this conversation with Carty via intercom. This simply doesn’t make sense. Obviously, the Ottawa County Sherrif’s department is lying. How would they know if he threw his hands up if they conversed with him via intercom? They wouldn’t. If there were video, we would have it.
January 15th, 2007 at 1:32 amKurt, there IS a tape.
January 15th, 2007 at 2:33 am“This doesn’t make sense to me. The Ottawa County Sherrif’s office stated that carty threw his hands up at the end of the conversation. However, they also stated that they had this conversation with Carty via intercom. This simply doesn’t make sense. Obviously, the Ottawa County Sherrif’s department is lying. How would they know if he threw his hands up if they conversed with him via intercom? They wouldn’t. If there were video, we would have it.”
While I have not been to the facility in question I have been to others types of facilities that use an intercom and you can and do see the person through a window, so it is plausible, that there was a window the statement is not a lie but a report in a newspaper let that ommitted a detail that possibly at the time did not seem all that important but now surely is.
The site of the department has a picture of the facility but does not shed any light further on the window, non window or camera issue;
http://www.ottawacountysheriff.org/corrections.html
January 15th, 2007 at 5:30 amChannel 24 had the entire pdf on line too…
January 15th, 2007 at 8:54 amI’m glad that the city has enough money to pay for a spokesman to justify the mayor’s indiscretions rather than just be the bigger person and ignore the rantings of a local journalist or accusations of a sherif not even in our county. In the meantime the city still shows no meaningful progress on: Southwyck, fights at Westfield, a broke COSI, a jobless rate over the national average, the nations highest taxes in hotels, gang problems that supposidly “do not exist”, needing more police and fire officials, and deficit’s in the budget.
Carty Gets Results seems more like Carty Gets Front Page Stories.
January 15th, 2007 at 2:32 pmSorry to come in late on this, but I have a few thoughts to add:
Surely the time line for this whole fiasco is known and documented, so it should be a fairly easy task to make a summary of the chain of events (as any good lawyer would do) and lay them out for all to see. This would make for a convenient record of the details and events for a jury to follow (as I believe one eventually will).
Resolving of the issues at hand is easily done, if the STRONG personalities can be suitably subdued.
Getting each sides legal eagles involved and n charge would be a wise thing from here on out, they have the temperament and wisdom to not make things any worse (although the City may need to hire some outside counsel not beholding to the mayor).
IMO, both sides should take a deep breath, exhale solely and choose their words very carefully. This can go away if everybody eats their share of crow, publicly apologizes for their past behavior, kisses, and makes up.
Also IMO, they’ll choose to do things the hard way…
January 15th, 2007 at 2:40 pmDoing some looking and reading of blogs this bubbled up at Swamp Bubbles and through googling we find this: http://www.wspd.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=121398&article=1598390
I suppose the office pools are taking bets on the 21st. and the Mayor’s next move.
And what is this going to cost us in legal should the Mayor decide to fight it.
January 17th, 2007 at 8:16 amsounds like just what the city needs with a budget deficeit.
January 17th, 2007 at 8:51 amAccording to the radio yesterday, WSPD does not plan to sue for dammages, however the judge may award legal fees to WSPD should they win.
January 17th, 2007 at 10:31 am“WSPD’s Talk Shows are under the program director’s direction. WSPD’s newscasts are separate and distinct from the station’s talk programming.”
Really? In most radio stations the News Director reports to the Program Director.
Interesting to note that the WSPD News Director is married to the Program Director. Conflict of interest? In most companies that would not be allowed. It’s my understanding that to get around the issue the News Director reports to Market Manager Andy Stuart instead of hubby Brian Wilson.
There’s a new talk station in town…. WTOD AM 1560, once a simulcast of K100, is now “SUPERTALK 1560″
Now beginning it’s 3rd year as a talk station.
Lineup:
6-8am – Doug Stephen (a Tiffin graduate)
8-9am – Tom Watkins (formerly of WSPD)
9-12n – Laura Ingraham
12n-3p – Neal Boortz (related to Brian Wilson?)
3p-6p – Dave Ramsey. A nice alternative to WSPD’s PM drive
6-9p – Michael Savage (starts March 1st)
Sat and Sun programming goes toe to toe with WSPD as well. In fact, ratings wise their about even. WTOD is presently at low power – 500 watts – against WSPD’s 5,000. Doesn’t say much about WSPD’s Sat programming.
Sunday
830-12n – Polka Party. Celebrates 60 years in April
12-2p – Sounds of Sinatra
2-4p – American Standards
4-6p – Small Business Advocate
6p-9p – Best of Boortz
9p-10p – Laura Ingraham Rewound
For a talk alternative, check out Supertalk 1560 WTOD.
January 17th, 2007 at 9:08 pmRegarding Wilson’s “freefall”… that’s not quite accurate.
He’s fallen 5th to 8th Persons 12 plus. In radio 12 plus means nothing. It’s a cosmetic number.
Wilson’s numbers in the key demo of P25-54 are actually stable. He’s up a bit from Summer. He’s still down from Denny Schaeffer this time last year. But overall Wilson’s numbers are not as bad as many think.
January 17th, 2007 at 9:10 pmThanks radiovet, I haven’t looked at the numbers so I appreciate you sharing the information.
January 17th, 2007 at 9:44 pmCourt order on WSPD news access is affirmed
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070201/NEWS02/702010375/-1/NEWS
February 1st, 2007 at 9:30 am