- Dylan in Missoula on Tuesday? How can I not go? #
- Old, or is it? Photographic Evidence of Time Travel.
http://gizmo.do/d559vj #
August 2010
I don’t know Betsy Baumgart. I don’t know what kind of work she did promoting tourism in Montana and I don’t know what might have led to her termination. Neither, apparently, does the Independent Record, but that didn’t stop them from offering one of the sloppiest editorials I have had the misfortune of reading. The core of the editorial can be found in these three paragraphs, a series of unsupported and unsubstantiated questions:
Is there a connection between these personnel changes? Is there move afoot to shake up the Commerce Department? Or are the ousters acts of simple vindictiveness, rooted in differences of opinion or partisan politics?
There is one answer to all these questions: Who knows? And that’s the problem.
Hiding behind a claim of privacy to withhold information about highly visible public officials in a critical state department simply doesn’t pass muster.
Do the nature and circumstances of these personnel moves create a potential financial liability for Montana taxpayers in the form of potential wrongful discharge actions? Were any of these moves accompanied by severance payments? If so, shouldn’t those payments be a matter of public record?
“Who knows?” is exactly the problem. An indignant editorial that cavalierly dismisses the importance of protecting the privacy of a terminated employee is no substitute for journalism; it’s sloppy and it’s unprofessional. There may well be a story worth writing about this firing, but not without laying the groundwork and doing some investigation. It’s tremendously easy to ask leading questions and cast aspersions against government and public officials, but it’s not the role of journalists, who should be writing stinging editorials after they’ve written the news story, not the other way around.
The editorial also offers an instructive insight into how the news gets framed. Consider this section from a news story in the Great Falls Tribune by John Adams:
Baumgart declined to say what reason Schwinden and Roos gave for the termination because she is considering challenging the decision. She said she has discussed the matter with an attorney.
Or the story in Independent Record itself by Mike Dennison:
Baumgart also declined to say what reason she was given for her dismissal, which occurred Aug. 20 in a meeting with Commerce Director Dore Schwinden. She said she’s consulting with an attorney about a potential lawsuit.
How did today’s editorial frame that?
But neither Baumgart nor Schwinden have shared any reasons for the firing. Baumgart said she may challenge the dismissal and is working with an attorney.
It seems like the IR decided to leave out a causal connection that might just undermine the narrative they’re spinning. It seems Ms. Baumgart was given a reason for her termination and has chosen not to share it, seemingly an important detail.
I know times are tough for newspapers, but that doesn’t excuse this kind of “journalism.” Looking over today’s top news in the IR, one could make the case for realigned priorities focused on news. Then, instead of asking questions, the Independent Record might start providing us all some answers.
Today’s story, about the Montana Chamber of Commerce endorsing both Beth Baker and Nels Swandal, seems to have a headline that is somewhat content-deficient and doesn’t really capture the story. It reads “State Chamber of Commerce endorses both Supreme Court candidates, gets grief for it.”
Ignoring the fact that the endorsements (and reaction) are a week old, the headline doesn’t really say what happened: the Chamber endorsed both candidates and Swandal is crying about it.
This campaign has certainly demonstrated that Judge Swandal lacks both the temperament and impartiality necessary to sit on the Supreme Court, and this latest fit demonstrates that his judgment is, at the least, suspect. As the president of the Montana Chamber of Commerce told the IR, it’s an unconventional strategy to attack an organize that gave you its endorsement.
I happened to notice this evening that the Montana Standard offered some well-deserved praise for Senator Tester’s latest publically-released ethics review. Says the Standard:
There’s no time like the present for other members of Congress to follow Tester’s lead and invite such scrutiny. We’d say this is an excellent idea not only for the remainder of the Montana delegation, but for senators and representatives in other states as well.
Judge Bennett, while making some suggestions for improvement, gives the Senator and his staff high praise:
Well, what about it, Representative Rehberg and Senator Baucus?
The entire report (actually an interesting read) is available here.
I thought I had better finish my look at Helena’s most entertaining lawsuit this evening. Part of the reason I stopped today was that I honestly couldn’t understand a single paragraph of the second half of the document. Six hours later, I still can’t, but I’ve decided that’s probably not my fault.
The earlier sections of the complaint, while characterized by boilerplate right-wing grievance syndrome, were understandable. As we move deeper into this masterful work of fiction, the tale becomes much more complex. Consider this section, headed by the delightfully ironic reference to the Montana Constitution’s prohibition against state agencies funding religious institutions:
Kristi has made attempts as late as the August 10, 2010 District Board meeting to acquire an economic analysis of the development and production of the health enhancement curriculum brought forward by the district. None of this information has been made available, again rendering question as to the source of funding. All funding and the sources of the funding of the school curriculum must be disclosed under law.Without such, Kristi claims the findings of facts once again violate her rights under these provisions of the law. With federal funding being used in the education programs in Montana it is furthermore important to have access to the sources of that funding as a right to know by the people of Montana.
Kristi again on August 18th requested the District to provide for an opportunity to address the Board of Trustees at their next meeting. (See Attached Exhibit D) Insuring the District is aware of all the facts prior to adoption of the District Health Enhancement Curriculum is the root of the complaint and without such, finding of facts is shortchanged. At time of the filing, the District has failed to respond to the request to address the meeting on this matter.
As Cowgirl notes, Allen-Gailushas would seem to have no problem with the state promoting a religious view, as long as it was her bigoted one.
My apologies for the length of this excerpt, but one truly has to read a full section to get a sense of absurdity of this document. I’m not an economist or a scholar of the law like lawn chair patriots in the Tea Party, but I would guess that the funding for health curriculum can only come from one source: the Communist-Islamofascist-Progressives. And George Soros.
Or maybe, just maybe, the district intends to pay for the health curriculum out of ITS PUBLICALLY AVAILABLE BUDGET, the one that Allen-Gailushas hasn’t bothered to pay much attention to.
I will send $50 to the Tea Party if one of them can explain what the subject or even topic of this sentence is.
Ultimately, under the Montana Constitution Article X Section 8 , vests the supervision and control of the schools in each school district with the Board of Trustees that are under oath as elected officials as provided by law.
I might sue someone for giving me a headache after reading this:
The law provides the citizens of the state of Montana a means of checks and balances. Without such, we the people have no way to insure the interests of the people are protected. The legal system provides for a process to administer all levels of government and the people a way to insure the actions of the District and OPI do not infringe on the basic rights of the people. It is here that Kristi rests her faith in the separation of powers and the court to grant immediate relief to Kristi.
Okay, or this. I mean, this has to be a joke, right?
It is in the heart of due process whereas the District must afford Kristi and other citizens of Montana a right to discover and disseminate the information and to process documents used in the development of the health curriculum by the District which has refused to allow.
The mind boggles. Conservatives scream about frivolous lawsuits, but can’t bother to proofread lawsuits that will cost taxpayers money and students educational resources. I think it’s wonderful for parents to get involved in the educational system and to fight for the rights of their children; they just need to make some damn sense when they do it.
