A3

Shawna Richer
Telegraph-Journal

Stumble Upon

del.icio.us

Digg

Facebook

Print

Email

29 Comment(s)

Last Monday night at Saint John common council, Mayor Ivan Court announced that the Telegraph-Journal threatened to change its tough coverage of city hall only if he were to lower taxes and fire Terry Totten, then the city manager.

Mr. Court said he was told this in a meeting by the publisher Jamie Irving, managing editor Ron Barry and myself, and he proclaimed it proudly as if sharing a state secret, as if he was finally going to publicly humiliate the provincial daily newspaper by blowing our cover.

But here's the thing: I am proud of that meeting, and the unyielding stance taken by the Telegraph-Journal to demand better for the city and its people. The meeting, while private, certainly wasn't a secret, and it was initially only with Mr. Totten. Mayor Court barged in unscheduled.

Mr. Totten, who resigned earlier this month, blamed the newspaper's coverage of his generally poor record at city hall for his decision to accept a half-million dollar severance package and a pension of $16,000 a year.

Resigning was Mr. Totten's decision to make, and I have no personal feeling either way.

But I am fiercely proud that the newspaper has stayed true to its most pressing purpose - to make the community better and stick up for Saint Johners and their interests. If that means a different city manager, then so be it.

Yes, we told Mayor Court and Mr. Totten unequivocally that if the citizens of Saint John received better service in the way of lower taxes, safer drinking water and better roads, then the stories we wrote would reflect that reality. There is nothing wrong with that, and we have delivered the same message in numerous editorials.

Here is what happened leading up to, and during the meeting Mayor Court is crowing about:

On Dec. 5, I received an email from Mr. Totten, inquiring about the tone and focus of a series reporter John Chilibeck was working on about the drinking water situation in Saint John. He expressed concern that a negative agenda was being pursued.

I responded and offered to hear his concerns on the phone. Five days later he replied that, on the heels of another story he found negative, we needn't bother having a conversation.

In the days following, he requested a meeting with managing editor Ron Barry, publisher Jamie Irving and myself.

So, on Friday, Dec. 12 at 3:30 in the afternoon, we sat down with Mr. Totten in his office on the eighth floor of city hall.

He said he felt he and his colleagues were being unfairly targeted for harsh criticism and asked what he could do to stop it.

Our answer: Do a better job running the city.

In these words: lower the taxes, provide safe drinking water, fix the pot-hole riddled streets, clear the snow quickly and efficiently, and pick up the garbage in a similar manner.

We cited all these as examples of how city hall could affect change in what they perceive as negative coverage. Poor performance by city managers would result in critical and challenging coverage.

The world over, if politicians are doing a good job, and citizens are generally satisfied, the newspaper coverage reflects that.

About 15 minutes into the meeting, Mayor Court arrived without warning, saying he hoped we didn't mind him sitting in.

We asked why they couldn't run the city most cost effectively. They insisted it was impossible. We asked why they couldn't provide better services. They said they were doing the best they could under the current tax rate.

Their conversation was often circular, and their explanations made little sense. One thing was clear, they didn't understand the newspaper's role.

They blamed our coverage of city hall for chasing off prospective employees.

They said if we cared about the city we would write positive stories

On a number of occasions, Mr. Totten goaded us to "put some skin in the game" and partner on a consulting study to determine how to run the city more cheaply.

For better or worse, running the city is not our job. But it is our job to look out for Saint Johners, who may surely thrive or struggle as the city itself does. The meeting, which lasted two hours, ended cordially but, from my viewpoint, with little understanding.

We made it clear we would continue to do our job and demand better for the taxpayers of Saint John. Were we wrong to do so? Absolutely not.

If a newspaper can not act independently to affect change for the good of a city, a province or a country, then it fails.

Mayor Ivan Court must have decided he didn't like our stance because after New Year's he proclaimed at common council that he would no longer give interviews to the Telegraph-Journal, not unless Jamie Irving would agree to debate him on city issues in a public forum.

When asked to rate the performance of Mayor Court on a variety of issues - first year in office, handling of water and recreation issues - 400 Saint John residents gave him on average 4.6 out of 10, in a CRA poll commissioned by the Telegraph-Journal earlier this year.

Fifty-six per cent of those same respondents rated him below 5 out of 10, only 11 per cent scored him 8 or higher, and 65 per cent said they somewhat or completely oppose the city's decision to spend tens of millions on a new police station in a recession.

Our only response through all of this has been for Mayor Court and the staff at city hall to do their jobs. We are doing ours.

Shawna Richer is editor of the Telegraph-Journal.