Does Herald reporting skew the facts? Knowingly? You bet your bippy. When caught, they always explain it away. Poor reporting can be due to the reporters or the editors - and we readers cannot tell whom is responsible. An editor can delete and change the wording of a reporter's work to juice up an article. All we have is the reporter's name as a place to pin the responsibility. If a reporter's good work is being skewed by an editor, then the reporter has choices.

 
Our county council is preparing to put what they call a "non-binding opinion question" to the voters of Whatcom County.  They are planning a vote to put some question to us voters in an election later this year.  This is basically an opinion for or against an issue in order to guide the council in its decision making.  The issue is complicated and has more to do with a confused council than any real issue. 
 
Today, Sam Taylor reported that the cost of such a ballot will probably only be $63,000 to $80,000. Sam alludes to this being the low number - but never gives the high number. His article goes on to almost suggest the vote might cost much less even than that. 

Gentle reader, this little non-binding opinion election could cost us around $250,000. Where do I get such an outlandish number? From the same person Sam talked with - County Auditor Shirley Forslof. It all depends on how and when the election is held. Now, the council could put the question on a ballot where the cost is around $80,000 - but my point is that the Herald is not telling us all the facts. Sam is leaving out costs his county council friends do not want published. He is leaving out the high numbers.  

An example: The current WTA tax increase ballot is costing us about $250,000. Did you know that? I may have missed it, but I don't think the Herald has told us that. The WTA could have put this issue on the primary or general ballot and reduced the cost to $80,000. They chose not to. Certainly they were not caught off guard on the need for the tax. They deliberately chose an election date when no other issue would be on the ballot.

There is an art to getting a majority in a special election - like a tax increase or a favorable public opinion. You put it on a ballot by itself and then direct-mail and phone supporters to vote 'yes.' What happens, if done right, is many who would vote 'no,' don't vote at all for various reasons. One big reason is, people forget when the ballots are due. The Herald avoids reminding us - as it is (not) doing during this election cycle. Did you remember to vote? 

Election day for this WTA tax is next Tuesday, April 27. Mail your ballot by Monday to be sure it is postmarked in time to be valid.  You should also know that no minimum number of votes is required and that a simple majority of one will pass the tax.  No 60% needed.  If 100 people vote and 51 vote for the tax, then it passes.  

A second article that caught my attention was Tuesday's piece by John Stark about Mike McAuley missing a Port Commission meeting on Monday. I checked with a couple friends to see their reaction to the story - and they felt McAuley was irresponsible. That was also my first impression. But upon learning more, it became apparent Stark did a hatchet job on McAuley. 

Seems last week, before McAuley went on a trip, he checked with Port staff who told him the special meeting would be Thursday, April 22. Mike arranged his schedule to be present for the Thursday meeting. After he left, Commissioner Jorgenson and the staff decided to schedule the meeting for Monday instead. They did this without reaching Mike or making sure he even knew about it. They knew he was gone, and had told him the meeting was scheduled for April 22. This is either very stupid staff work or dirty tricks by Jorgenson. A willing John Stark and the Herald completed the dirty work. Seems McAuley actually was acting responsibly. 

By the way, back when commissioner Pete Zuanich would be gone for months, fishing in Alaska, the Herald covered for him. And for the last few years, the Herald did not even attend most Port meetings. But Stark was johnny-on-the-spot to smear this new commissioner. 

I noticed Stark's article had no quote or statement from McAuley and did not indicate Stark even tried to contact him. Normal reporting guidelines call for stating how and when an attempt was made to contact a person when reporting a story. If Stark did try to contact McAuley, he did not put it in his article.