Intermission
Knox County Chancellor Daryl Fansler is expected to issue his remedy sometime today in News Sentinel Editor Jack McElroy's suit against Knox County Commission. Right now, the case floats in a kind of intermission between acts, and I strongly suspect the fat lady is about to sing.
While we're waiting for Fansler's ruling, today's News Sentinel contains four articles on the aftermath of Tuesday's verdict. One is an AP wire story recounting Governor Bredesen's idea to expand the role of a state-level ombudsman to include issues relating to Sunshine Law violations. The other three, written by KNS staff, are:
The first article, which is above the fold in today's paper, discusses Commission Chairman Scott Moore's seemingly contrite ideas for allowing greater openness and public input in County Commission's meetings; somehow, the article manages to do so with a straight face. I don't think I could have written it that way.
The second and third articles look at other local governments beyond Knox County for examples of how they ensure the Open Meetings Law is respected and followed. Those two articles could have been combined into a single story.
I have only two minor critiques of these pieces, and they both involve this article:
First, the headline of the article ("Open government's value affirmed") strikes me as editorializing. Although the truth of the sentiment is self-evident, the headline nevertheless advocates one side in the recent trial.
Second, the article begins with this lede:
Concerned citizens and officials in East Tennessee universally hailed Tuesday’s Knox County jury verdict invalidating the less-than-public January appointment of 12 officeholders to replace others forced to give up their positions because of term limits.
To a person, they viewed it as an affirmation of the concept that government should function in the open. And some said the decision could provide a baseline for county commissions all over Tennessee on how they should — or, more appropriately, should not — operate.
The use of "universally" and "to a person" imply that the writer interviewed every citizen and official in East Tennessee. A grand total of five people are quoted in the article, and although they did in fact support the outcome of the trial, that sampling can hardly be described as "universal." I'm sure that a poll of everybody in East Tennessee would show nearly universal agreement with the outcome, but such a poll hasn't happened yet. That's the only way the opening sentence could be used and not be hyperbole.
It's a minor point, but it bugged me.
Otherwise, all of these articles are written in an objective, well-rounded way, avoiding favoritism to any one side.