|
|
Local Paper Invents Scandal
By Ambrose Bierce, Editor-in-Chief
In an effort to spruce up its front page, the Gazette-Leader newspaper attempted to invent scandal with the school board's latest move to hire a new labor attorney.
The July 3rd article asks the question: "Was the . . . recent selection for labor attorney made impartially?" and then goes on to misconstrue quotes and erroneously cast doubt on the board's decision, officials are saying.
The article also contains some major errors. For instance, it states that the school board will not be negotiating any contracts this year. On the contrary, the board will be negotiating two upcoming contracts. And there are always the costly labor "grievances" brought to the board by the unions.
Another error was publishing the assertion that the firm the board picked was not the lowest bidder. The paper failed to mention that although the firm had a higher per-hour fee, the firm billed by quarter hours; the other billed every ten minutes.
Additionally, the new firm does not charge for minor phone calls - which many other firms gladly cite on their bills.
The newspaper also fails to mention the state inquiries into the billing practices of the firm the board passed up, officials tell the DISPATCH.
"The purpose of the Leader's article was to inflame without cause," one official told the DISPATCH in confidence, "Which is a shame because the paper wouldn't have to make up scandal if it just covered town hall and the county."
In fact, the paper leaves out the fact that the school board requested bids for the position of labor attorney. State law does not specify that a school board request proposals for a "professional service" such as labor counsel.
It has been past practice of the old school board and of the town council to hire professional services without a bidding process.
"We feel that the board should request proposals whenever possible so that we always get the best deal," board member Sergio Bichao tells the DISPATCH.
The Gazette-Leader, however, does not bother to mention this fact but instead asserts that the board's decision was not "impartial".
|
|
|
