Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write jimhopkins[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the rail, upper right.
[Photo: legendary gossip columnist Hedda Hopper. Blind item?]
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
Blind Item | A spousal conflict of interest?
Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write jimhopkins[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the rail, upper right.
[Photo: legendary gossip columnist Hedda Hopper. Blind item?]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
So a wife isn't entitled to her own career? Jim: You would have her barefoot and pregnant at home, I guess.
ReplyDeleteTo the juvenile(s) at 9:53 and 12:26: Grow the hell up. It's a legitimate concern when an editorial staffer is intimately involved with somebody who works for an entity that the staffer or paper covers. As long as there is a publicly defensible policy on how that staffer is not involved in any decisions regarding coverage, it gives the reading public some assurance that the hanky-panky isn't straying into the pages of the publication. But when that staffer is the editor and the coverage area is the city, then it becomes almost impossible to be able to make that claim without (understandable) skepticism and scorn. Distrust of newspapers is already high enough without adding unnecessary ammunition to the detractors.
ReplyDeleteYo 2:31, this is sooo not an issue. The wife is entitled to her career. This is so not blog-worthy. Now go fall on your sword
ReplyDeleteSpouses are entitled to their own careers. If you work for Gannett, your spouse better have a career. But if you're the executive editor of a community paper there are one or two jobs that should not be considered. One of them is certainly the spokesman for the city the executive editor oversees coverage of. It's a ginormous conflict of interest.
ReplyDeleteBTW, there seems to be some sexual stereotyping going on here. Jim's original post is gender neutral. The responses assume the man is the editor and the wife the spokesperson. I don't know which paper it is, but it could certainly be the other way around.
So enlighten us. At least tell us who the newspaper even if you want to withhold names for the editor and spouse.
ReplyDeleteHey 2:31: Who died and made you the comment-Nazi? Sure, it's a legitimate question, and you didn't answer it either. I've seen all sorts of conflicts of interest that passed without an eyebrow flit at my (getting) small(er) newspaper. We go way overboard on the subjects our executive editor is into. And every time United Way passes gas, it's on one of the section fronts.
ReplyDeleteSo lighten up a little, kommandant!
As 6:22 p.m. observes, my post was, deliberately, gender-neutral.
ReplyDeleteAs to 7:31 p.m.'s question, my goal here is to spark a lively debate; this situation could well exist at any Gannett newspaper, as several comments reflect so far.
Jim, I don't see why you are hesitating here. The names of the folks should be easy to confirm. And you regularly let readers say whatever they please about top editors. Your MO generally is top exec = stupid/evil. So name them.
ReplyDelete11:44 it is interesting to see reaction on the blog. You disagree with someone and call them a Nazi. Very classy. So much for respect of differing opinions.
ReplyDeleteNepotism. Pshaw. Who working at the Desert Sun could pass a thought about the nepotism surrounding them? Not only legalized ones as well, as testimony from the couples carpooling who don't have a legal union.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely an issue of conflict and public confidence. Wonder which spouse took which job first? We give up. What paper? Name names, please.
ReplyDeleteI'm truly surprised to see so many readers who think this is a perfectly acceptable situation. What happened to the company ethics policy about the APPEARANCE of misconduct?
ReplyDeleteYou could be the best boss in the world and do your darndest to create a neutral environment for that reporting to be done, but come on. You can't tell me that readers don’t think there’s even the appearance of impropriety.
From a Oct. 28, 2010, story in The Desert Sun under the headline, "Desert Hot Springs releases staffer's severance agreement." Here's the text:
ReplyDeleteKate McGinty • The Desert Sun• October 28, 2010
The city of Desert Hot Springs will pay nearly
$100,000 to its former community services director
under the terms of an agreement released
Wednesday.
Laura Green, whose position was eliminated last
week, will be paid for three months of administrative
leave. She will also be paid six months salary as
severance.
The agreement, which includes nine months of
health care benefits, calls for a lump sum payment
of $99,328.16 to be paid in January.
The six-page severance document was released by
the city one day after it announced Green's
departure, citing a budget cutback prompted by
declining property tax revenue.
Neither Green nor Assistant City Manager Jason
Simpson, who signed the agreement on behalf of the
city, returned calls Wednesday.
Much of the agreement — including clauses that
Green will not file claims against the city and that
neither party will defame the other — is standard
language, City Attorney Ruben Duran said. He
declined to say why she was paid administrative
leave.
The last department director in Desert Hot Springs
whose position was cut — Jonathan Hoy, who
oversaw public works and whose salary was in the
same range as Green's — was paid three months
salary as severance.
His position was eliminated in April and officials
also cited budget cutbacks.
Green — who is married to Rick Green, executive
editor of The Desert Sun — began working for the
city in November 2007. She also acted as city
spokeswoman.