More Idiocy from Local News

Two stories draw my attention.

Let's start with tonight's report from Aaron Diamant. This is fresh so the only link I can give is for the teaser. (Update or Correction: try this.) This is a typical example of a news report seeking to generate outrage over a sensationalized big zero. The charge is that taxpayers are forced to pay for county officials using the internet for private matters while at their offices. The facts given in the report:

1) Some county residents feel (rightly, according to the reporter) that being an elected county official is more or less the same as being a barista at a coffee shop and that they should spend their time at work actually working.

2) There is a county policy that allows county workers to use the Internet service provided for their jobs for private matters, so long as it is not excessive.

3) They looked at internet logs and found that officials like various county supervisors and the county executive visited social networking sites, checked on investments, and shopped online from work. The County Clerk spent at least 24 hours over a period of four months, before during and after work, planning a wedding online. (That's about 18 minutes per average workday, including time before and after work and while on break.)

Facts that were not given:

1) Are these employees paid by the hour?

2) Did they do as many hours or as much work as the position expects? (Actually, one person did say they sometimes put in 10 to 15 hour days, so in at least one case, the answer appears to be yes.)

3) Did the time spent on the Internet add any cost to the taxpayer over what they would pay otherwise?

4) Did it cause any decline in service, or did any public business not get done?

5) Were any of these people engaged in private business when they were needed urgently for public business?

6) Might permitting officials the convenience of not having to leave their offices in order to attend to their private lives actually improve their productivity or help attract higher quality candidates?

7) What is the comparable standard in the private sector (for professionals and administrators, not waitstaff)?

8) What limitations are there in the monitoring system that appears to reflect this amount of time spent online? Might the actual time burden on the employees have been less than is apparent from the monitoring? (I had a client who was a public employee discharged for excessive Internet use and we discovered that the reports based on the monitoring dramatically inflated the apparent time spent online, because it assumed that whenever two sites were visited a half hour apart, that the user was sitting glued to the screen for that half hour and not, say, taking a business call while the computer went to screensaver.)

9) Is there evidence that any of these people violated any policy, sought payment for hours not spent working, or commited any legal or ethical offense related to their online time?

I conclude that his was a stupid report. It does not tell us whether these elected representatives are doing their jobs or whether allowing them to use their computers for private matters is good policy. It does recite uninformed opinion that executives should be bound by the same rules as baristas, as if they had no authority to exercise discretion, power to delegate, and as though their jobs are merely a matter of serving time. I would submit that this kind of myopic, pandering report is a particular disservice in the midst of a major national election, where voters should be guided to some practical understanding of what they are voting on. Which is not a barista. (Mike Huckabee would probably be slow on orders because he'd be chatting up the customers, but you's still like him; Obama would always get your order right and serve you with a bright smile; Hillary would be the best able to advise you on the merits of Tanzanian Peaberry over Kenya AAA or the Decaf Haraar; McCain would be a lousy barista.)

On to the next report, from John Mercure again. Do not confuse this similar report. The story here is that a priest ministers to an old woman in ill health, visits her every day as a hospital chaplain, and she decides to leave him all her worldly possessions. Her family, who is cut out and gets nothing, not even the family photos and historical records, finds out later and is upset, and calls the priest a con man and throws around a lot of insults and speculation that he took advantage of the old gal, saying that she had previously expressed her wishes to make specific legacies to various family members.

Now of course, just because I think Mercure's reporting is garbage does not mean that Father Ryan is a saint. He may well be "heinous" scum just as labeled in the broadcast. But the facts are really questionable, and the report leads me to consider how much different it would have been if news reports followed more of the standards applicable to courts.

In Mercure's reporting we have this sequence: (1) The accusation is made; (2) The accusation is supported by lots of insults, hearsay and speculation, but not one document, eyewitness report, or piece of physical evidence of any wrongdoing; (3) Mercure confronts the priest who denies the charges and states that the decedant expressed her desire that the matter remain confidential, and although he looks a little squirrely, he reacts far more calmly and addresses the matter more straightforwardly than anyone else I've seen subjected to one of Mercure's ambushes; (4) More hearsay and speculation, and a statement that the Archdiocese claims that the estate was mostly given to charity but has not produced proof. Then it is said that the priest had sent a letter claiming to have a note from the decedant to show that she did express a desire for confidentiality, and pointed out by the reporter that the priest's letter does not prove anything about the distribution of the estate. The lawyer for the decedant also refuses to divulge any documents.

In court, both sides get an opening statement up front, so that the beginning of the report is not entirely loaded down with one side of the story, and the defense relegated to the end. Actually, that's standard for news reports too, something that is routinely done in the ledes of inverted pyramid style reports, but apparently not something Mercure worries about.

Then the party with the burden of proof must present evidence. Not, oh, I'm so shocked, how could he do this, he must have taken advantage of her. Something like, the priest has done this before, the old lady had dementia, she expressed a contrary intent after the will was changed, the proper probate procedure was not followed. But here we get nothing of the sort. We're told she would do anything a priest said. Okay. Would she do that of sound mind because it's what she really wanted in her heart? Then she's getting her wish. Sorry, family. The old lady is responsible for screwing you. Bad form, but it's her property, and if she wants to give it to the priest with instructions to distribute to charity, that's legally her business. I think it's bad, but that's what a lot of old people want when they're very religious and fear death and want to bribe Saint Peter. I think the old lady was thoughtless toward her family, specially with regard to the photos and documents, but maybe she felt abandoned. How do we know?

Then the other side gets to put in its evidence, but has the right to be silent if it thinks the other side has not given it anything to disprove. In this case, it does not. It cites confidentiality and relies on the adverse case being weak.

Then both sides get a summation. Each can point to the other's lack of evidence, not just the prosecution.

There may have actually been a legal action in this case, but I do not see one recorded in Wisconsin. The old gal had moved to Illinois, and I don't think Lake County of Illinois as a whole has an online database of its circuit court cases like Wisconsin does. When she died, assuming Father Ryan is not her long lost son or brother, her heirs at law would have received notice and the opportunity to challenge the will. That was either not done, or the challenge was unsuccessful. The previous executor was not notified because he was not an heir or beneficiary, being only a great nephew. So this raises the question: if there were a basis to suspect illicit influence on the part of Father Ryan, why not raise it in that forum?

Other things that kind of bug me here. First, since Mercure knows from his previous reporting that some dioceses have considered restrictions on gifts to priests, one wonders if this diocese has any. If so, is that the only reason the estate is going to charity? If not, then shouldn't the church come in for some shame in all this? After all, it was the church and not the priest that pumped all these beliefs into the gal all her life that probably had more to do with her decision than this one priest who tended to her near the end. It was the church that gave him is collar and thus his influence and authority with this deeply religious woman. What charities are being supported? I have identified one: Guest House, a center in Michigan for alcoholic and drug-addicted priests and nuns to dry out for a while before going back to their parishes.

Second, there's an odd schizophrenia about the piece, on the one hand titling it "pay to pray" which sounds like a cavalier profanity, disrespectful of religion, that takes in vain the notion of prayer while going for cheap alliteration and not actually describing the story, and yet treating the whole concept of a bad priest as shocking and unthinkable. Which is crazy, unless you think that the thousands of victims of clerical pedophilia are making it all up.

Third, I think lots of old people near the end upset the settled expectations of their families and make really bad decisions regarding their final bequests. They also just, outside of a will context, despoil the sentimental fortunes of their estates, giving away or allowing to be taken or destroyed those things precious to their families. The intervention of interlopers is often blamed, but frequently the amount of intercession required to get the old folks to give up the goods is frighteningly trivial. Not that interlopers don't exist, but I know various elderly people who have thought about disposing of heirlooms without any conniving voices in their ear, so that clearly is not the only problem. I therefore think that putting all the blame on the priest here, while it might turn out to be correct if all the facts were known, is a pretty cheap and easy out that avoids looking at the state of probate law, the increasing problems that we have with an aging population many of whom make dreadful and thoughtless end-of-life choices all on their own, and, as I've hinted above with reference to the Catholic Church, the broader cultural influences that affect people near the end of life and lead them to screw over their families in favor of strangers and new suitors: religion being one of the worst, but also ideals of "tough love" and independence, general neglect of family, and, especially, materialism. I don't think family members necessarily should have dibs on the money. I'd be happy with a very high estate tax. But I think there's a lot of family stuff that would have historical or sentimental value. When we start thinking only of money, we forget that stuff. Lots of old people seem to assume their kids don't care about that stuff but a lot do.

Can we get some deeper discussion of these issues rather than a hit piece on one priest? The focus on him may or may not help create some justice on the retail level, but there are broader problems implicated here that affect thousands of people and singling out an easy fall guy diverts discussion from the real problems. If old people have a grace period now under federal law for rescission of their contracts, perhaps wills should not be immediately effective without cause or some oversight? Maybe family heirlooms should be placed under a different legal regime from fungibles like money. Maybe groups other than priests should start to erect restrictions on gifts from those they serve.