News-Record.com

Unfortunately, with all the no comments and avoidance, my mind ran through all the BAD possibilities. That now drives me to want to know more, to wonder if everybody has been contacted, if every rock has been over turned.

It could be as innocence as a raise was requested with quitting as bluff. We will probably never know as the rumors are flying off the shelf.

You know John I felt the exact same way every time I heard Sandy Carmany tell someone how bad she wanted to tell what she knew but she could not discuss it because it might interfere with some investigation or that the legal department told her she couldn't or that these were personnel records or a dozen other reasons she couldn't tell the public. To make it even more aggravating, many times she used the phrase "if you knew what we knew, you would agree with us".

What if he just doesn't call you back?

Always troubling. It could well mean no comment. 'Course you never know if he's even got your message.

Perhaps you're talking to the wrong people. Are you asking people who are authorized to speak for an organization versus those who are not? Are the authorized people giving you the 'no comment?'

If you're asking me, Sue, I'd say that yes, most of the time we're asking the right people. If someone is not authorized, they usually say, "you need to talk with" so and so. (And then the person they direct us to no comments or can't be reached.)

That's true. Or he might think transparency is what a math teacher uses on an overhead projector.

Yes. As we know through our discussion with public officials, transparency is an acquired taste.

Mr. Robinson,
I am sure with a organization as big as GYSA there is going to be a lot of talk in the community . I would have some songbirds talk to some parents who are probably in the know about everything. Now that the cat is out of the bag someone will probably talk it might take a few days but i am sure the reason is out there go digging.

No question, Keith. I wasn't saying that the story couldn't be gotten. I was thinking that if the executive director wanted any sense of control of the message about it, he should speak about it.

true

I'll say again what I've said before when you complain that important people don't want to talk to the N&R.
Given the track record of the N&R on misquoting, liberally slanting, and out and out fabricating facts in such a manner as to destroy people's reputations, I'd be darned reluctant to talk to you guys on the record as well.

Dunno, John. Sometimes "no comment" maybe a legal admonition. If your lawyer (or company's lawyer) says, "Don't comment," then a person's hands may be tied. A school principal can't speak about an issue that might wind up in court and no one from the county schools can talk about a student's medical or other confidential files, so a "no comment" is legally required. However, I'm not familiar with the GYSA story, and don't know the particulars, so I'm not commenting about that in particular. I just see lots of good reasons that someone who might like to say, "You've got it wrong," is unable to do so at a particular time.

I'd blame it more on legal considerations many times than a reluctance to be quoted in yours or any publication.

jaycee, I'm trying to imagine a time when we would ask you for a comment and can't...but that doesn't seem to stop you from commenting here.

Sue, I understand why people say no comment. What I wonder is why they have the need to say "You'll understand later when everything comes out."

My experience is that they rarely ever come out and say anything later.

I'm sorry, Mr. Robinson, I thought your blog was for the "little people" to comment. Perhaps I'm not important enough for your eclectic little group and therefore my opinion has no value? Or does the fact that I point out uncomfortable truths raise your ire?
For the record, I've been interviewed on many occasions in the past by N&R reporters. Sometimes I gave comments, sometimes I didn't.

Sue is more correct than not. I've noted many times that people such as city council members and school board members have said that they can not comment on advice of counsel. The end result is the same as JR's first thoughts. They are merely hiding behind a lawyer to keep from answering difficult questions. Of course, any lawyer's first advice will be to say nothing. But, in the case of elected officials that may not always be best. Elected officials have an obligation to those that elected them to be honest and truthful about how they are conducting the people's business. Any time that they hide behind a lawyer, it raises suspicions on their credibility. The same goes for going into closed or secret session to discuss the people's business. It is illegal, but in this case, the law has no teeth.