Opposing View: Newspaper unfair, biased

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

The DeVincentis e-mails

Steamboat Springs — Editor's Note: The following commentary was written and submitted by supporters of John DeVincentis who met with the Pilot & Today Editorial Board to discuss the recall of DeVincentis.

We understand the Pilot & Today Editorial Board is considering writing an editorial in support of the recall of John Devincentis. We think that would be incredibly unwise on the part of the newspaper.

We disagree with the Pilot & Today about the recall and about the lawsuit and appeal you recently filed against the School Board. We don't need to repeat reasons for opposing the recall and the SOS RE2 group. But we will tell you why we think it would be an incredibly unwise move on the part of the newspaper to go ahead with a pro-recall editorial.

Here are the main points:

1. The Pilot & Today has done more than enough to help the recall effort and at the very least should now remain on the sidelines.

2. It would be irresponsible to come out in support of the recall before results of the school board investigation are known. You could be supporting something that is associated with illegal activity.

3. Here are two quotes from your April 4 editorial about D.A. Bonnie Roesink: "Subverting the people's choice through recall is a serious step that should be reserved as an option of last resort" and "If her performance as district attorney has not lived up to expectations, the voters can make a different choice 18 months from now, in the 2008 election." Does this not apply to John, especially when the people who are actually on the board working with him do not find him disruptive and do not want him recalled?

4. You've already written an editorial saying John should resign.

5. Editor Scott Stanford has a big conflict of interest because of his wife's previous job, and it will look bad - really bad - after all that's happened, to now come out with an editorial in support of the recall. It will look like you either don't know when to quit or you're desperate for this recall to succeed.

Here are a few examples of how the newspaper's coverage has helped the recall group:

First of all, you printed the e-mails, which was a questionable move in the minds of many.

Nearly every article repeats the very worst things from the e-mails, taken out of context. The negative is always accentuated over the positive.

You have covered the recall group and their meetings in detail, including what they have to say and how to find a petition. There have been five articles where the main topic is the recall effort and numerous more that are generally negative about John.

The newspaper's continued coverage of this issue has been biased, and that includes the article in Sunday's paper, written by a reporter, who, two days before, wrote about what a great time he had at the Gleasons' party. In the article, he quotes four people supporting the recall and one who's against it. In a reach, he tries to link John's anger toward Simms with the current situation, saying, "In more recent e-mails, Devincentis' anger continues." Then he quotes recent e-mails to Howell which, although again taken out of context, sounded reasonable to me from someone trying to ensure that a job is being done.

The article states, "Former and current school officials say public trust in the district's leadership is fading..." Well, maybe, but it's certain that public trust in the Pilot & Today's fairness is fading. The e-mails wouldn't have hurt anyone if they hadn't been printed.

You didn't cover some other relevant angles to this story such as: what happened between McGowan and Simms to make him upset with her, why was John so upset with her, why did Gleason and other former board members save the e-mails for two years, why didn't they tell the current board about them? You've barely mentioned that the e-mail leak was a security breach.

Given the extent of the Pilot & Today's bias on the recall issue, we admit that we considered that it might actually hurt, not help, the recall group if you come out with an editorial in support of them. Lots of people have said they're disgusted with your coverage, and some of them are not fans of John and have considered signing the recall.

In the midst of all this criticism, we should add that we have no doubt you are trying to do the right thing, just as probably everyone in this story is. We just think you've made some big mistakes.

If the goal was to punish John, it's been done. If the goal was to neutralize any influence he has on the board, that's been done too. If the goal was to be sure the superintendent's job was safe, we think it is.

On a final note, we have to appeal to everyone's human compassion. How badly should a person be hurt, degraded, and humiliated in a small town? Especially someone who has contributed so much over so many years and is now volunteering at a difficult job to try to do what he thinks is right. He made some mistakes and he and his wife are paying for drastically, every day.

I realize a newspaper can legally take any position it wants, but writing this editorial now would be treading into dangerous waters if you want to maintain any semblance of being fair and balanced. The Pilot & Today, and specifically the editor, will have overstepped their bounds.

More like this story

Comments

another_local 6 years ago

Not a single word addressing the issue.

0

linus 6 years ago

another local: Read it:

"We don't need to repeat reasons for opposing the recall and the SOS RE2 group. But we will tell you why we think it would be an incredibly unwise move on the part of the newspaper to go ahead with a pro-recall editorial."

the "issue" was already addressed in many letters in the Sunday paper. And one of the main points that is not mentioned here was that we need to protect the political process and not allow underhanded and possibly illegal tactics to win.

0

Hammurabi 6 years ago

Where have they been meeting? I have been to the public SOS RE2 meetings and gathered information. They have made their names public from the beginning. Other than the letters to the editor, I haven't seen any public opportunity to meet them, know who they are and hear their facts. Something's missing here.

0

Sunnydays 6 years ago

I hear they have been meeting at the Double Z right under a former board members nose...

0

Sunspot 6 years ago

"They" are everywhere, except at the Pilot and the SOS rituals. They are the people who are disgusted with the smear campaign as a way to reach political goals. There are many other ways the old guard could have gotten rid of D without dragging our town through the mud. I have not met anyone, including people who are for the recall, who think the Pilot is "fair and balanced" on the Dr. D issue.

0

JQPUBLIC 6 years ago

In part from another post...

If the D fans are so sure that he really is the great man that they revere, he will withstand a recall, if not, the people have spoken. NO ONE should fear the process if they are in the right, they just need to convince the voters why they should keep him in office. Attacking the petitioners and the recall process doesn't convince anyone D should be retained and neither does whining about how the emails were made public. Now is the time to convince the voters of the good D can do, if any.

Whoever a media outlet endorses will always have an unfair advantage and whoever they are against will always be laid bare.... sooo... it is up to the voters to listen with an open mind and then do their own homework.

Remember, politicians aren't always truthful, and the media is not unbiased.

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years ago

Hammurabi- Maybe there are no organized gatherings. Those for Dr. D have no need to meet and have a "lovefest" to help feel better about the ordeal. Those wanting to recall him have to meet in order to sound like they are more of a single mind.

0

Hammurabi 6 years ago

As JohnQ stated if SOS RE2 is successful in placing the recall on the ballot, there will then be plenty of time for a great citizen's debate and information gathering period. Then, after the debate has taken place, the voters can decide. There's nothing wrong with a community going through the democratic excercise, actually, it can be very healthy and enlightening, as well as educational for the entire community.

0

sarakg 6 years ago

"We don't need to repeat reasons for opposing the recall and the SOS RE2 group. But we will tell you why we think it would be an incredibly unwise move on the part of the newspaper to go ahead with a pro-recall editorial."

I can't actually think of any reasons that this group has given the public to retain DeVincentis. Rather, they have practiced a smear campaign against the group using the democratic process to do what is best for the district. Discouraging people from signing a recall petition and participating in the democratic process is akin to discouraging people from voting because you don't like the way that they are going to vote. This group cannot actually give voters reasons to retain DeVincentis, so they put up a smoke screen to distract people from the real issue. If anyone has any questions, please feel free to contact the SOS RE-2 committee at www.sosre2.com. You can also contact this group of DeVincentis' supporters at...wait, you can't. Doesn't that say something?

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years ago

Hi Sara! Thanks for dodging the question I asked you a week or so ago. Must be nice to add 2 cents then toddle off when someone else's 2 cents comes up. Normally, I'd follow this up with something about an apple...

Regardless, I could care less about what happens to Dr. D, but until your father comes clean on his timeline, he's just as bad. I'm supporting neither in this debacle. All he's shown me is the same attitude of political revenge. He had the emails for 2 years, sat on them for 2 years without the public (at least) knowing, and presented them when he thought it was opportune.

All your father's good deeds and service have completely disappeared from my view all because he hid behind those deeds as reaped reward from political plotting. Then you come online to defend him, yet only enough to suit your desire, if questioned about things that don't add up. Doesn't THAT say something? It sure does to me.

0

Sunspot 6 years ago

So,,, the smearers are being smeared? That's just not fair!

0

thecondoguy1 6 years ago

this is gettin good..........

0

Sunnydays 6 years ago

Reasons to support DR. D.

  1. He is a good person that puts kids first.

  2. He has multiple years of experience as an educator and an administrator.

  3. He is a change agent who is willing to be a lightning rod for change.

  4. He has had multiple schools of excellence as an administrator.

  5. He understands the politics within the schools and how the superintendent functions.

  6. He is passionate about education.

Reasons not to support Dr. D.:

  1. His passion for education can be percieved as bullying.

  2. Personal e-mails were released showing a darkside.

  3. He is willing to fight for what he believes in rather than compromising.

0

another_local 6 years ago

Sunnydays,

Good comments. I do not agree with all of them though:

  1. Puts kids first... well yes if they will help the test scores of the building he is responsible for. There is another side to this.

  2. Yes.

  3. He certainly does not seem afraid of criticism.

  4. I don't think so. He spent his career here at one school.

  5. No. I think you are wrong on this one. He had his mind made up before DH arrived here as shown in the emails. He has also seriously misjudged the politics of this town if not the schools.

  6. Probably so.

  7. In this case perception is reality.

  8. No argument there.

  9. I am more cynical than you are. I think he still does not understand that his way of dealing with people is unacceptable and that his "apology" is false.

Furthermore, compromise is an essential element of success in an organization like the BOE. Unwillingness to compromise is a disqualifier.

0

Sunnydays 6 years ago

As to number 4, In my view each year is a different school, and he achieved multiple awards of excellence for Strawberry Park. So let me restate, Strawberry Park Elementary School under John Devicentis was recognized many years as a "Colorado School of Excellence."

As to number 5 I did not say he recognized the politics of the town. He recognizes the politics of the schools as he lived with them for many years, and he is aware of how the Superintendent functions.

Donna Howell came into the district with baggage that the board was not aware of. "Got Milk" in Burlington, other issues in Texas. Maybe Dr.D. was aware of those and did not want to influence the boards decision, as if he could at that point in the game.

0

Sunspot 6 years ago

Paula Cooper-Black said 1500 signers. Brian Kelly said 1300 signers. Well which is it? I will put my money on Brian. This guy couldn't tell a lie if he had to. At the moment, he is a little misguided, but I know he wouldn't lie. Stephenson,,,, well,,,. When the main sign-up places are the Liquor store, the Double ZZ and Doak Walker, I have to wonder just how many signers are actual registered voters.

As I wrote earlier,

The Recall Group's main task now is to convince a small town in northern Colorado that a pig's ear is really a silk purse.

0

Sunspot 6 years ago

And sarakg, if you don't believe you are involved in a smear campaign, just read your own petition.

0

SteamboatJoe 6 years ago

Didn't a smear campaign start on a public school computer?

Let the voters speak for themselves. It may not even get to a vote but if it does, D still has a chance. I am just not sure he can maintain such a low key profile until November. His anger gets the best of him. I wonder how
his "help" for that is going?

0

Sunnydays 6 years ago

What I find interesting is that Paula Cooper Black Serves as Chairman of the Yampa Valley Charitable Trust and Donna Howell Serves as Vice Chair. Suzanne Schlict, Jim Swiggart, Greg Stedman, etc..., etc... are on the rotary with Donna Howell, but this is not about saving Donna Howell... it is about personal e-mails that were probably acquired illegally and that in reality hurt no one... Get a clue, the e-mails were released to save Donna Howell by destroying John Devincentis. Why did Scott Stanford say he first rumors about the e-mails at the time Mike Johnson read John's statement. Revenge or fear for Donna's job. Why is it that they were finally released at a time that the board was deciding on Donna's future, and why is it that all the people attacking Dr. D. seem to have personal relationships with Donna Howell. Lets call a spade a spade. This is not about John Devincentis this is about Donna Howell.

0

SteamboatJoe 6 years ago

This is actually not about Donna Howell at all. It is about whomever occupies the superintendent job. The pattern for John is to attack the superintendent regardless of who it is. If he gets his way, the district will not even have a superintenedent. See how this isn't about Donna?

0

Sunnydays 6 years ago

So you agree that a principal should be required to "control his parents" as part of his job requirements? Because I know the parent who started this whole issue five years ago by threatening the 1/2 cent sales tax if a teacher was not added to bring down his daughters class size for the following year at Strawberry Park, I know DR.D. did not even know he was going to the board on this, and I know there is no principal on earth that could control him.

0

SteamboatJoe 6 years ago

Not sure what this post about an out of control parent has to do with what is being discussed - the issue at hand is John's innappropriate behavior.

The old board gave him a chance to succeed, saw what he was up to and exposed him. He had a chance to do the right thing but he continues to undermine any progress for the school district. He needs to go and if those who are holding him accountable are "evil," to you and the "citizens" then so be it.

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years ago

So SteamboatJoe- the old board "gave him a chance to succeed..." How did they do that, by the way? Did it have something to do with knowing about those emails while giving him the chance to succeed?

See, my whole point is that the "old board" hid these controversial emails from people like you who were disgusted to learn of them. Of course, since it was the "old board" you just forgive them for that. "Gee, SteamboatJoe; sorry we hid these emails from you for 2 years, but we felt it wasn't necessary to involve the public until we thought it was the perfect time to not fear reprisals from Dr. D, since he scares us so."

If that's isn't the reasoning, then I think we can all establish that the "old board" wanted nothing to do with Dr. D succeeding in any way, shape or form. It's not like his battles with the "old board" were a secret.

Until Pat Gleason comes clean with his timeline, none of what he said adds up. He knew within 2 weeks of Dr. D's retirement as principal that Dr. D was running for the BOE, and his statement about "just coming off" a public battle with Simms was over 2 years before in 2003. I, personally, don't call that "just coming off" anything. Thanks to Pat Gleason and his statement, this stopped being about Dr. D and his temper a while back for those who want to see the larger picture.

0

Sunnydays 6 years ago

Pat Gleason held those e-mails in his pocket until he needed them. Scott Stanford stated he had first heard rumors of the e-mails over a year earlier, and Gleason says they were retrieved a year earlier than that. This is all about saving Donna Howell. If it was about Dr. D. they would have released them when he ran. They knew full well why he was running.

As to the out of control parent, Dr. D's performance rating was directly related to that parent speaking out at a board meeting and then fighting for a release of dollars. It was Dr. D's punishment by Cyndy Simms for having parents in his school with the audacity to actually attend a board meeting and then assert themselves. If this had not happened, there would not have been the issue with Dr. D and Simms and therefore no e-mails. That board, and specifically Paul Fisher, completely mishandled that issue and its misaction and Cyndy Simm's response are directly related to what is happening today. Five years after the fact.

0

SteamboatJoe 6 years ago

ole Joe here was not surprised to see what JD put in writing, the way he treats people continues to be shockingly rude and unless you have a personal experience, you don't understand it. I give you credit Matthew, you are the mediator voice when it comes to this issue so often. That tells me you haven't had much experience with the ugly side of Dr. D. None of what he wrote surprised those of us who know him.

While Gleason is no saint, the two men cannot be compared.

I'll ask again - maybe you know Sunnydays - how is D's anger management going?

0

Sunnydays 6 years ago

I have know idea. As I have not spoken to him since this has started and doubt I will. I personally know John and Cyndy and I feel the whole issue could have been avoided by a stronger board five years ago.

0

beagle 6 years ago

good ole joe - So D. was rude to you and probably to your friends. So we should recall him? I know Dr. D. and I know a LOT of people who worked with him for many years and know him well. They do not agree with you about his "ugly side". Nor, apparently, does the current board. And who are you to say Gleason and Dr. D. cannot be compared, do you know them both so well?

So, Joe, JQ, Hamm, another local, and whoever, I wish you would answer this: Why will you not address the main point that the other side keeps making? The point is, regardless of whether you like D. or want him on the board, the way this recall came about was all wrong. If you have a problem with someone, go to the board, go to the public, present your issues. Don't save up old e-mails and break district rules by taking them straight to the newspaper. We don't like the way this was done! Saying 'it doesn't matter how the e-mails came out' just doesn't cut it. There is a decent political process to be followed and in this case it REALLY wasn't. And saying that those against the recall are trying keep you from participating in the democratic process? Nice try. The recall petition tells people to sign the petition, others have the right to tell people why they should think twice.

0

SteamboatJoe 6 years ago

Beagle - D's "rude" goes far beyond what you are assuming happened to me or my friends. Remember his loser list?

You know people who were on the good list. Unfortunately, if you disagree with him, you are a loser. So, half of the people like him and half of the people don't. I will support whatever the voters determine in November. He has a right to be on the board if the public wants it and a right to be removed as well.

0

titsikama 6 years ago

Still waiting for anwer to beagles question...

0

JQPUBLIC 6 years ago

beagle.... it doesn't matter how the emails came out, who is getting even with who, who began the recall, who is calling who names, etc., the fact is it happened... it is out in public, and some people don't like it. There is no going back and forgetting the emails, or what was in them. The public will now use it's voting power to decide whether they want to overlook D's actions or not (it's the American way). Had Gleason stayed in office, you could have began a recall on him if you didn't like his methods, he didn't, so you can't. Start proving why D should keep his position instead of trying to convince voters to ignore D's crap because of the way it came to light. Let the voters decide, it's their right.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.