Letters

You can e-mail letters for inclusion in the print version of the Local to: production@chestnuthilllocal.com

Good employee relationships

Many of us have experienced an uncomfortable feeling watching a young child, in a supermarket for example, howl and scream at a parent, “I hate you!” We might think that the child doesn’t yet have the experience and information to control his emotions. Thankfully, it is much less often that we have to witness a parent shouting at a child, “I hate you!” Then, we probably wonder about the parent’s abilities and worry about the safety of the family.

On Monday, Nov. 7, in attendance at a meeting about board relations with the Chestnut Hill Local, I witnessed similar behavior in public.

Shortly after hearing a board member explain that everyone has a right to talk to the editorial staff, I heard the chair of the publications committee state that he had written a letter to the staff of the Local saying that if they took “orders” from any of several enumerated people, “they would be fired.” This same person had written a letter explaining to the staff that the Local was not a day care center or words to that effect.

I’m embarrassed that other members of the board and of the publications committee who were in attendance at that meeting did not immediately question or apologize for the words of their representative.

We can expect our leaders to be models for others to follow. Bitter words from those who disagree does not justify similar behavior from the person who is in power. It is wrong for the person who declares that he and his committee are the bosses of the Local to treat workers with the kind of disrespect I witnessed that Monday.

At the meeting, we learned that, for several weeks the editor and reporting staff thought that they were subject to the editorial direction of someone else on the staff of the Local. When the board found out about the mistake, they disavowed it and affirmed the Lentz policy, but board members wondered aloud why the staff had not told them of the problem earlier. When I witnessed how the chair of the publications committee spoke about the staff, I understood. The staff could hardly be expected to assume that someone who belittled them would listen to their complaints respectfully.

I hope that a future board meeting will review how to maintain good employee relationships. I suspect that a spirit of humility and cooperation will go a long way toward both resolving the problems at the Local and toward generating the kind of spirit the community needs to solve the looming financial crisis.

Barbara A. Bloom
Chestnut Hill

More than lip service

RE: Mary Sue Welsh reporting on executive committee meeting [Local, Nov. 17].

At the Executive Committee meeting on Nov. 10, I called for the president and vice president of Operations to provide leadership in solving the problem at the Local. The CHCA president’s comments implied that some insubordinate employee is giving direction in contradiction to the decisions of the CHCA board. I don’t believe that is what is happening. I believe the employees are following the direction they are being given and that direction is wrong and in conflict with the board’s stated position as well as CHCA policy. The CHCA president said the publisher’s committee would supervise the editors. If that supervision were limited to discussing policy in the interest of the CHCA, we would not have the current problem. When that “supervision” has involved the censorship of the editor (as has been reported by the editor), then I object to it. Certainly any leadership that can effectively oust six experienced staff members (I’ve lost count) can certainly rein in one subordinate.

The Nov. 7 memo reportedly stated that “Nancy Berger is in charge of the front section of the Local and nobody else … end of the story.” That contradicts the board’s vote on Oct. 27. When the CHCA president said, “Many heads should roll for the insubordination that has been going on,” I cautioned her that, as a result of all the recent resignations, there are too few “heads” now and that she should not follow that course. The problems at the Local are the result of wrong-headed leadership, not insubordination by employee(s). I think it is time for the CHCA board to do more than pay lip service to the First Amendment.

David J. Fielding
Member, CHCA

Who am I to comment?

I am really having a good laugh, far away in my new home on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, reading on my computer about your latest controversy over the CHBA and the Local. A lot of folks making arguments and not even being able to agree on what the issue is, a lot of power-playing behind-the-scenes by the board, a lot of name-calling in the (no-longer-posted-online) letters and disruptive outbursts at emergency meetings. Oh, and throw in some Snowden-bashing for good measure. For anyone with a bit of distance and objectivity, Chestnut Hill is doing what CH always does — thriving on contentiousness. No matter what the issue (and if there isn’t one, surely someone will find one), my experience of Chestnut Hill led me to realize early on that it isn’t Chestnut Hill’s charm that is the common denominator — it is contentiousness.

And who am I to comment on this situation? Just another former staff person who was also ousted in the underhanded way CH folks passively allow their association’s board members to act. James Sturdivant, Michael Mishak, even Marie Lachat, got some ink for their departures. Mine, in January 2003, was much quieter, and it happened behind the scenes of the Chestnut Hill Business Association but no less ugly and underhanded. I’ll spare you the details. It’s all so redundant when you look at Chestnut Hill behavior over time.

Vijay’s letter is yet another example in the same vein. He could have chosen not to use such inflammatory rhetoric (parasites? terrorists?) in stating his findings. He made some very valid points about the nature of organizational behavior and dysfunction. His suggestion for the new editor sounded facetious, but seemed right on. His comparison to other newspapers’ behaviors was bogus: those for-profit vehicles are the norm as they don’t have a community group as a publisher. Yet while Vijay is sharing some valuable insights, he chooses to couch his letter to curry favor … with whom? His preferred faction? Sounds a lot like what he accuses the “terrorists” and “parasites” of doing, doesn’t it? Oh my, can the contentiousness get any better than this?

As for Pamela Waters’ comments re (Jim Sturdivant’s reporting of the lack of) the involvement of the CHCA in the Philadelphia Historic Northwest Coalition, I can provide some personal history and affirm that during my tenure as marketing director for the Chestnut Hill Business Association (Aug. 2000 — Jan. 2003), I assumed an active role in this group. Prior to that, Peggy Miller and Kate O’Neill from the CHBA shared responsibilities for attending. The Coalition was not a group of representatives of various residential groups, but rather, of organizations with a vested interest in drawing visitors to the Historic Northwest along Germantown Avenue from Germantown to Chestnut Hill. Thus, there was no expectation (at that time) of representation from the CHCA. So both Jim Sturdivant (whose article I did not read) and Ms. Waters seem to be fishing in the wrong lake as far as this issue is concerned!

As for Richard Snowden, I think Chestnut Hill would just shrivel up and die without him as town boogie man. The man does have his flaws, but I will share this with you: during my time working in Chestnut Hill, he was the only person who articulated to me a comprehensive, clear and progressive vision of what a thriving Chestnut Hill could be.

Get over the “freedom of the press” issue and get down to the real issues of power and conduct! And try to adopt a mind set that keeps you from automatically assuming, “If it’s good for him/her/them, it must be bad for me/us.” Perhaps, some day, in some way, Chestnut Hill can find some “win/win” approaches and solutions.

Judy Goldschmidt
Black Creek, BC, Canada

Congratulations

First, congratulations to the new interim editor, Carole Boynton. My advice: stand by freedom of the press and the Lentz policy — fight and keep us informed. Remember that the Local is a unique community newspaper.

Secondly, Maxine Dornemann’s latest comments about insubordination and “heads will roll” when the dust settles concerns me greatly. The only ones that have been insubordinate are some of the leaders of the CHCA to the membership and the board.

The threats and intimidation must stop now and apologies are due to the outstanding hardworking staff of the Local. The publisher’s committee must be disbanded and the old format of a management committee must be re-established.

The changes to the bylaws that were made are suspect. I propose any changes to the original bylaws should be put to a paper ballot vote of the full membership since not everyone is able to attend the annual meeting.

Kathleen M. Jones
Chestnut Hill

Exceptionally good performance

Chestnut Hill residents: it’s time to stop fighting and to forget yourselves. Instead, support your community by seeing The Stagecrafters’ presentation of Coyote on a Fence by Bruce Graham. The story is very, very moving, and the acting is exceptionally good. The performances by Donna Marie Earl and Mike Ball are superb! The last nights are Friday and Saturday evenings, Nov. 25 and 26 at 8 p.m.

Carol Nickels
Chestnut Hill

Disregarded

RE: “Reckless Disregard” section in Libel: The Plaintiff’s Case, from Communication and the Law, 2002 edition:

“Reckless disregard for whether material is true or false, like knowledge of falsity, is a subjective test. But it can be determined by the conduct of the publisher … reckless disregard focuses on what the publisher reasonably should have known … for recklessness to rise to the level of actual malice, it must be significant — it must be tantamount to lying; it must be obvious that the publisher did not care about the truth of the published information.”

The Local did not check on statements of fact relating to material it itself had published before publishing those statements as fact in Pam Waters’ letter. Boy, oh boy. Whoever is in charge seems bound and determined to prove my charge of incompetence, over and over again.

I’m not sure that I would need to prove actual malice, but I am fairly certain that I could. I expect to see the correction posted on the online edition of the paper this week.

James Sturdivant
Chestnut Hill

Staff and readers of the Local

On Monday, Nov. 7, I submitted an Op-ed piece for publication in the Local edition going to press that week. One of the pertinent points of my piece required a reference to an editorial written by Jim Sturdivant in the Aug. 4 edition of the Local. The offices were closed during the weekend when I was composing my piece, and I needed to rely on the on-line archives to access the old editorial for my research. Unfortunately, the online archives had been corrupted and I was unable to access the piece I needed. I thought I had decent recall of the editorial and made the decision to try to re-create the gist of it through memory and research outside of the archives because I felt pressure to get my op ed into the next edition of the Local. Unfortunately, my memory was decidedly off. The day after submitting my finished article, I was able to get my hands upon a copy of Jim’s Aug. 4 editorial. There was a glaring discrepancy between my reference to his piece and what it actually said.

I considered it fortunate that my op ed did not make it into the paper that week. However, it did make it onto the web site, where it was posted for four days.

I cannot help but laugh at myself and the irony of my mistake because the subject of my article was editorial responsibility. Well, we live and learn … and hopefully, we graciously admit our mistakes. I would like to apologize to Jim Sturdivant for referencing his work so incorrectly. I would also like to make my apologies to the staff of the Local and anyone else who may have been affected or misled by my flawed research. I have re-written my Op-ed, made the appropriate corrections and submitted it again for printing. I do not hold out much hope that my opinion will be popular, but this time, I got my facts straight.

Pamela Waters
Mt. Airy

Proud of the staff

As founder of the Local and past chair of the Chestnut Hill Community Association (1968-69) it seems to me that every Pennsylvanian, indeed every American should be proud and acclaim the recent actions of Scott Alloway, Mary T. Flannery, Regina B. Holmes, Robyn John, Len Lear, Sonia Leounes, Cheryl Anne Massaro, Ellen Maher, Michael J. Mishak, Jimmy J. Pack Jr., Kaya Simmons and James Sturdivant because of their publicly demonstrated courage and integrity in their collective support of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution.

“Give us men [people] a time like this demands, strong minds,
great hearts, true faith and ready hands;
People whom the lust of office does not kill’
People the spoils of office can not buy;
People who possess opinions and a will;
People who have honor;
People who will not lie;
People who can stand before demagogues
And damn their flatteries without winking!
Tall People, sun-crowned, who live above the fog in public duty and in private thinking.”
-Anonymous

Lloyd P. Wells
Falmouth, Me.