Update II: I’ve also heard from Christina Mitchell, the editor for the story. Here is her explanation for why the story was taken down then reposted: 

The simple answer is that the story was put online prematurely, without Fuentes’ response. But even upon adding that, I felt we needed to bolster our sourcing, better clarify the ethics law, and speak directly with the Assemblyman rather than through a written statement. That took a couple of days, thus the delay.

We editors make these kinds of calls all the time.

Update I: I’ve pulled up a comment below from reporter Kevin Shelly, who wrote the original story. I hope to hear from Christina Mitchell as well. 

Stephen:

Woulda been kinda simple to have just asked about that draft online version, Stephen, since you have my cell, my work email, and my personal email. But since you didn’t bother to connect, I now must suggest contacting our executive editor, Chris Mitchell. In fact, I woulda suggested you should have done that anyway if you were gonna write an insightful and enlightening entry. At least that’s what an ethical journalist woulda done, Stephen.

One last thing: I think your reading of the final print version as “hedged” simply shows a lack of understanding on your part. Consider this passage — and consider the credentials of the man who said it. This is from the final version, though you failed to mention it: Ethics guidelines do not address the use of state resources and personnel in support of a legislator’s charity efforts. But they should, according to William E. Schluter, who served about 20 years in both houses of the state Legislature. Schluter, a Republican whose advocacy for above-board government has rankled members of both parties, also chaired the Joint Legislative Committee on Ethical Standards and served as vice chairman of the State Ethics Commission…. But Schluter doesn’t think that should extend to the use of state offices and personnel on state time.

“I think that the legislative office, paid for with taxpayer money, should be used for legislative work, period,” he insisted.

“This is what I call ‘soft corruption’ or ‘honest graft.’ … Devoting time and assets out of the legislative office should be addressed by the Joint Legislative Committee on Ethical Standards.

“If it isn’t in the code,” Schluter added, “it should be.”

In what world is calling someone’s actions soft corruption or honest graft “hedged?”

I see why McKillop passed if this is your best shot, Steve.

******

There’s been a lot of gossip over the past week about the disappearance (web cache here), and eventual reappearance of a story alleging that Assemblyman Angel Fuentes’ office used state resources (i.e. staff time) on his Hispanic Leadership Summer. The original story has disappeared from the C-P website, and there are differences in both tone and content between the two versions. The Courier-Post needs to come clean about why the article was pulled.

One major difference between the two articles was that Assemblyman Fuentes’ office refused to comment on the initial story. It certainly appears that the story was pulled in order to get additional comment from Assemblyman’s Fuentes’ office. The question is, did that happen under pressure from the Assembleyman, or because the C-P realized that in election season, this was a front page story (where it eventually ended up) and they wanted more reporting?

In the initial article: 

Requests for comment by the assemblyman and his staff were not returned.

A significant portion of the article afterwards focused on denials by Assemblyman Fuentes: 

For his part, Fuentes sees “no problem at all” with the office work done on behalf of the Hispanic Leadership Association, because no one in that group is paid. The work included compiling a mailing list for the association’s annual fall summit.

As one of the few Hispanics in the Assembly, the Democrat also said he “feels a responsibility” to support Hispanic efforts. He pointed to the association’s record of awarding scholarships and drawing about 500 people to the fall summit.

The assemblyman said he verbally requested an advisory opinion from legislative counsel about operating the group and was given verbal approval. He also pointed to a 2009 advisory opinion that allows legislators to work on behalf of charities.

The tenor of the two articles changes as well to become more hedged: 

Assemblyman Angel Fuentes and members of his 5th District staff appear to have violated ethical standards by doing work out of the legislator’s state office for an advocacy group he helped found.

On state time, using state resources, Fuentes and his staff earlier this year helped plan the annual fall summit of the Hispanic Leadership Association at Rowan University, according to a former Rutgers University-Camden intern who says he was heavily involved.

That was rewritten to state: 

Assemblyman Angel Fuentes and members of his 5th District staff used their office on state time and with state resources to support a Hispanic advocacy group the legislator helped found.

But was it unethical?

Ethics guidelines do not address the use of state resources and personnel in support of a legislator’s charity efforts. But they should, according to William E. Schluter, who served about 20 years in both houses of the state Legislature.

The Courier-Post needs to do a better job of explaining the conditions under which these changes were made. There’s plenty of irony here that an article about ethics disappeared and reappeared without explanation. At the same time, reporter Kevin Shelly, and Rutgers-Camden student Brian Everrett (who I currently have in class) deserve some kudos for reporting and bringing this to light. Politicians will continue to bend the rules around state resources if whistle-blowers and reporters don’t dive into these issues. There is a reason that constituent services worker Jennifer Martinez denied working on the project (her denial appeared in both versions), and an even more telling paragraph in the original article in which she not only denies the alleged work on the contact list, but denies knowing who Brian Everrett even is. Everett’s response was telling: 

“I don’t know how (Martinez) could forget who I am,” Everett responded.

Everett said he and Martinez were the only people in the small office for eight to 10 hours a week for several months. At the height of the list-making, he spent two days a week in the Camden office and one in the main district office in Audubon.

Please, go read the two articles. And, tweet this one to the Courier-Post to see if we can understand the reason for the changes.

Tags: courier-post