COMMENTARY: On ‘Editorial: The benefits of suing yourself’

“...the American Society of Newspaper Editors sets forth this Statement of Principles as a standard encouraging the highest ethical and professional performance.”

ARTICLE I - Responsibility. The primary purpose of gathering and distributing news and opinion is to serve the general welfare by informing the people and enabling them to make judgments on the issues of the time. Newspapermen and women who abuse the power of their professional role for selfish motives or unworthy purposes are faithless to that public trust. The American press was made free not just to inform or just to serve as a forum for debate but also to bring an independent scrutiny to bear on the forces of power in the society, including the conduct of official power at all levels of government.

ARTICLE IV - Truth and Accuracy. Good faith with the reader is the foundation of good journalism. Every effort must be made to assure that the news content is accurate, free from bias and in context, and that all sides are presented fairly. Editorials, analytical articles and commentary should be held to the same standards of accuracy with respect to facts as news reports. Significant errors of fact, as well as errors of omission, should be corrected promptly and prominently.

Yet, in the Carmel Pine Cone (April 15, 2011) “Editorial: The benefits of suing yourself,” Editor Paul Miller did not demonstrate “responsibility” and “truth and accuracy.” To wit, the editor’s overarching claim that the City’s former Human Resources Manager Jane Miller was incompetent is based on the false assertion that Jane Miller “kept quiet until she sprung her lawsuit.”

FACT: Former Human Resources Manager Jane Miller filed her lawsuit against the City on 17 June 2009 and “immediately served the City.”

FACT: Prior to 17 June 2009, Mayor Sue McCloud, the City Council and City Attorney Don Freeman were notified on numerous occasions in writing of Jane Miller’s claims of retaliation, discrimination and harassment at City Hall, as follows:

• May 20, 2008: Letter from plaintiff’s attorney Michael Stamp to Mayor Sue McCloud and City Council
Letter informed the City of Stamp’s representation of Jane Miller and her claims of “retaliation, gender-based discrimination and harassment, as well as age-based discrimination...”

“For the past several years, the Mayor and City Council have supported Mr. Guillen without meaningful inquiry into his practices and without effective oversight. His inappropriate relationships with female subordinates, his actions in classifying and rewarding favored employees, his extravagance with public funds, his favoritism within the work place, his inappropriate actions and statements, and his unchecked power over the lives, salaries, and personal lives of City employees have been overlooked or unexamined by the Mayor and City Council. Those actions have resulted in a hostile work place and adverse and illegal employment actions...”

• July 30, 2008: Letter from attorney Michael Stamp to Mayor Sue McCloud (copy to City Attorney Donald F. Freeman) informing her that the complaints had been filed by Jane Miller against the City and the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) had issued right-to-sue letters to Miller; one complaint identified the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea as respondent and the second named Richard Guillen.

• October 17, 2008: Letter from attorney Michael Stamp to Mayor Sue McCloud and City Council
“Nearly five months ago, Jane Miller, the Human Resources Manager for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, informed the Mayor and City Council in writing of her claims of retaliation, gender-based discrimination and harassment, and age discrimination against the City and City Administrator Richard Guillen. Ms. Miller also filed a complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing."

“Although the City has a policy prohibiting harassment which mandates prompt and effective action, the City did not take either prompt or effective action. In fact, the City has taken no meaningful action.”

“In a letter of May 20, 2008, on behalf of Ms. Miller, we provided notice to the Mayor of Ms. Miller’s claims in regard to Richard Guillen. The Mayor never responded."

“During her employment with the City, Ms. Miller has had no adequate or appropriate recourse to remedy her concerns. According to the City discrimination policy, provided by the city four months after Ms. Miller notified the City of her claim, the employee’s recourse is to inform the personnel committee, which did not exist at the City. Ms. Miller’s only other possible option was to contact the Mayor, which she did with the letter of May 20. It is clear that the Mayor then allowed Mr. Guillen to act against Ms. Miller by ordering her to return to work, and that it was futile for Ms. Miller to disclose anything to the City in confidence and without fear of retaliation. The Mayor has never responded to Ms. Miller’s May 20 complaint, nor has she responded to Ms. Miller’s DFEH complaint.”

• October 23, 2008: Thirteen-page letter from Jane Miller to Mayor and the City Council which outlined “the workplace situation, Guillen’s actions, the actions directed at Miller and the favoritism displayed to others, all in support of her May 20, 2008 letter.”

• June 17, 2009: Plaintiff Jane Miller filed suit against the city and “immediately served the City.”

The editor also claims that Jane Miller’s claim of retaliation, discrimination and harassment was “remarkable.” Needless to say, in the context of at least four other senior management city employees, namely the Assistant City Administrator, Community and Cultural Director, Library Director and Executive Assistant, making similar claims of retaliation, discrimination and harassment against City Administrator Rich Guillen and the City between 2003 – 2008, what is remarkable is Mayor Sue McCloud’s and City Councils’ failure to take city employees’ claims seriously, failure to follow and enforce the City’s policy against sexual harassment, failure in their duty to take all reasonable steps to prevent retaliation, discrimination and harassment from occurring and once notified of said concerns failure to promptly and effectively prevent and remedy the environment of retaliation, discrimination and harassment at City Hall.

In closing, the author of “Editorial: The benefits of suing yourself” did not demonstrate “the pursuit of a standard of integrity proportionate to the journalist’s singular obligation.” Moreover, Editor Paul Miller’s opinions based on untruthful and inaccurate assertions show an editor more interested in protecting and defending the unconscionable and indefensible acts and omissions of Mayor Sue McCloud and City Councils than in upholding the principles of journalism and serving as an independent watchdog for the people of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.