Letters
to the editor
Student criticizes CSULB journalists
It
is with great dismay that I write to complain
about the Nov. 19 story, “Former Justice
Files Against Vivian” by Joyce Kelly. In
her article Kelly did an incredibly inept
job reporting on the two cases against A.S.I.
President Danny Vivian.
The first error, in the first paragraph,
states that I was former chief justice.
This is simply inaccurate, as I was an associate
justice, not chief justice.
The second paragraph inaccurately paraphrases
case 610. Kelly cites the case as questioning
“whether Danny Vivian had authority to appoint
various positions in student government.”
I don’t know where she got that sentence
from, but it was not from the case.
The question raised by 610 is whether, and
to what extent, the executive offices of
A.S.I. should be subject to conflict of
interest provisions, as are the senators,
in the appointment process. The brief for
609 did question whether it constitutes
a conflict of interest for the president
to appoint the public defender whose job
it is to prosecute A.S.I for violations
of law. Nowhere in 610 is that raised. Case
610 also asks if a conflict of interest
needs to be actual or only perceived in
order to invoke a conflict of interest provision,
what remedy is available to someone or group
who is harmed from a decision made under
a conflict of interest, what the burden
of proof is to establish a conflict of interest
exists or is apparent, and whether the appointment
may devolve to another office if a conflict
does exist.
These questions were all completely ignored
by Kelly’s column but were the entire focus
of the case.
In her sixth paragraph, Kelly recites the
fact that I applied for the position and
did not receive it. She then spends two
more paragraphs discussing this issue. What
she did not report is that I was the only
applicant for the position from May until
September. Vivian delayed filling the position
for 5 months because he didn’t want me in
the job because he knew I would hold him
accountable as I did last semester in ASJ
607 and 608.
Let me be clear here, because Kelly will
not be: this case is not about me not getting
the position. Yes, I was irked at what I
thought was an unfair play by Danny Vivian,
and yes, my circumstance gave me reason
to raise questions about propriety in our
government, but these cases raise by law
issues that are not about me. I am not asking
the court to take any action relating to
me. Kelly felt that she needed to
make me out to be a whiner because I didn’t
get picked. The real issue is who
is going to hold the president accountable
and how can that happen if Vivian stacks
the positions with his personal friends?
Vivian has ignored all court orders to date,
and apparently wants to continue to do so
without any interference from me leading
the court.
As I hold Vivian accountable for what I
believe is poor governance, I also hold
Kelly accountable for poor journalism, as
should anyone who cares about truth and
accuracy. Although Vivian did not
attend either hearing Monday, Kelly went
out of her way to contact him for a quote,
but did not quote once from my statement
to the court, my two filed briefs or the
press release I provided her.
Kelly seemed to grasp the second case heard,
609, which was about the manner in which
appointments are made, including the timeliness,
how applications are distributed, time windows
for applications and other details of that
process. What she failed to do is
any investigative journalism to enhance
the story. The case brief cites that
there was no public defender at the time
of filing, although she fails to mention
that one has since been appointed and confirmed.
However, there still to my knowledge is
no Senate
Parliamentarian despite the order from case
ASJ 608, there is no press secretary, no
historian, and no officer for either the
Committee for LGBT students or the committee
for women’s studies according to the latest
AS roster. Why didn’t Kelly ask Vivian why
these positions had not been filled? Kelly
ignored all fifteen legal questions raised
by case. Apparently Kelly is not concerned
with a dysfunctional AS government, but
is concerned that Vivian gets an opportunity
to make me look bad.
Kelly did include a paraphrase of my statement
to the court about the danger of fraternity
brothers being appointed to key positions
in AS government, but she placed that in
the context of 609 when it belonged with
610, thus causing confusion to many readers.
Without a conflict of interest provision
applying to executive officers, it is entirely
plausible that most, if not all, of the
Judiciary and various commissions could
be filled with personal friends of the President.
In preparation for the hearings Monday,
I informed Kelly personally last Tuesday
of the hearing date, time and place so that
an announcement could be printed inviting
students to attend the hearings. I also
wrote and faxed in a press release with
the same data. She and the editors
also refused to print that information,
and as a result no one but Kelly and I attended
the hearings, although I since learned that
others, including the campus Progressives,
would have been attended if they had known.
The editor, Michael Watanabe, informed me
that the editors decided that the students
did not need to know about this.
The primary question is why would a journalist
do such a horrendous job of reporting such
important matters. The only answer I have
is that Kelly and/or the editors do not
like me because I spoke out against Kelly’s
opinion piece condemning Professor Cummings
over the noose poster incident a couple
of weeks ago. If the reader will recall,
Kelly called for the Cummings’ resignation
and I defended Cummings and the poster in
the name of free speech and questioned Kelly’s
journalistic integrity.
Apparently, Kelly holds a grudge against
me for that, and as a result, all of the
campus will now suffer by receiving biased,
inaccurate and incomplete stories in the
On-line Forty-Niner. That is very unfortunate,
as I had hoped our reporters at Cal State
Long Beach would have more respect for their
job than to allow their personal animosity
to dictate their professional actions. What
strikes me the most, however, is not how
one journalist can be biased, inaccurate
and unprofessional, but how an entire editorial
staff can overlook it.
|
