Build a better relationship

As lawsuits about the Open Door Laws and the confidentiality of Bob Knight's personnel records wend their way through the courts and the University addresses a shortage of state funds, the IDS's responsibility to serve as a watchdog of government operations took center stage over the last few weeks. There have been several breaking stories and critical editorials this summer concerning the actions of the University and its officials, culminating in a guest column by William Stephan, the Vice President of Public Affairs and Government Relations (July 15, "Brand misrepresented"). \nIn his guest column, Mr. Stephan criticized the IDS. This column shouldn't have run as it did, as the criticism of the IDS is under the purvey of the ombudsman. I know from experience that there is a policy of not allowing guest columnists to criticize the IDS, as a guest column I wrote (April 3, 2001, "Suicide prevention resources should be better promoted") was edited to remove any mention of the paper for this very reason. Mr. Stephan is not entitled to preferential treatment by this newspaper, thus criticism of the IDS's journalistic integrity should have been edited out. \nBut it was published, and Mr. Stephan accused the IDS of relying "almost exclusively on statements by the plaintiffs and their lawyer," as well as ignoring his points and making errors in their reporting. \nIn their article (June 27, "Brand admits to law evasion"), staff reporters Matt Rodewald and Jackie Corgan not only used multiple sources, but even spoke to Mr. Stephan himself. His remarks were reflected in the article, but when I spoke with him, he felt the article "didn't reflect important points" of the conversation, and there were many "distortions and inaccuracies." \nThe same could be said of his column. He distorted many points, attributing quotes to the IDS that were actually made by the plaintiffs' lawyers. He also accused the IDS of not researching the law despite the fact they quoted Indiana's public access counselor, Anne O'Connor, extensively in the article.\nThis event, while not indicative of the historical relationship between the IDS and the University, does highlight some key areas that have been problems this summer. Overall, Mr. Stephan is "disappointed with the IDS this summer" and feels it's been doing "slipshod reporting." He said the IDS has "done a poor job of gathering facts and understanding the law."\nOn the flip side of the same coin, IDS staff members, myself included, have had difficulty getting the University to respond to requests for comment. Corgan said she had difficulty getting Mr. Stephan to respond in a timely manner to her request for comment on Brand's deposition. I attempted to contact Mr. Stephan last Friday for this column, but he was on vacation. I asked for someone else in his office to comment on the University's relationship with the IDS, but that staffer refused to comment on the record despite my insistence that I had a deadline. Mr. Stephan said his staff is encouraged to comment, yet that did not happen in practice. \nAnother incident involving the University, but not Mr. Stephan's office, occurred when Corgan attempted to contact Parking Operations about its changes in parking policy (July 1, "Parking fraud out of operation"). After much legwork, she was unable to obtain sufficient comments from the parking offices.\nThe overall relationship between the IDS and the University is not as poor as has appeared recently. Mr. Stephan said he was "very proud of the IDS," and Editor in Chief Ryan Gunterman said he felt the University was "very supportive" of the paper, but there is room for improvement. The IDS staffers must be diligent in tracking down their sources and accurately portraying their positions. And management should refrain from publishing guest columns that attack the journalistic integrity of the writers, as this only aggravates a sensitive situation. On the other hand, the University must be more responsive to the requests of the media, whether it be the IDS or any news source. Mr. Stephan is a busy man, so he should empower his staffers to provide comments if he is unable to do so in a timely fashion and ensure that this actually happens.